Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| - Attorney General v Oldridge (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional. (en)
|
name
| - Attorney General v Oldridge (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
caption
| |
court
| |
full name
| - The Attorney General, Applicant v Albert John Oldridge, Respondent [2000] IESC 29 (en)
|
italic title
| |
judges
| - Keane C.J., Denham J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J. (en)
|
keywords
| |
has abstract
| - Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional. (en)
|
appealed from
| |
Concurrence
| - Denham J, McGuinness J, Geoghegan J, Fennelly J (en)
|
date decided
| |
decision by
| |
number of judges
| |
opinions
| - There are offences in the jurisdiction corresponding with the offences in respect of which the respondent's extradition is sought, namely: Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law. (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |