This HTML5 document contains 64 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n10https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2017/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n16http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/
n19https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n15http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1965/act/17/enacted/en/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n11https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2000/
n23https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2001/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n17https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20070201/SUB/70201017/
n14https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/04/05/A-federal-grand-jury-in-Detroit-has-indicted-five/6994828680400/
n22https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n9https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi%3Fdoc=/ie/cases/IESC/2005/S53.html&query=(title:(+egan+))+AND+(title:(+v+))+AND+(title:
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Attorney_General_v_Oldridge
rdfs:label
Attorney General v Oldridge
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.
dbp:name
Attorney General v Oldridge
dcterms:subject
dbc:2000_in_case_law dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland_cases dbc:2000_in_Irish_law
dbo:wikiPageID
61944033
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
995762782
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Conspiracy_to_defraud dbr:Common_Law dbc:2000_in_case_law dbr:Aiding_and_abetting dbr:Wire_fraud dbr:Statute dbr:Statutory_law dbr:Robbery dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland_cases dbr:United_States_Code dbr:Law_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland dbr:Indictment dbr:District_court dbr:Republic_of_Ireland dbc:2000_in_Irish_law dbr:List_of_Irish_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland dbr:Extradition
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n9:(+o%27toole+)) n10:CA250.html n11:29.html n14: n15:html n15:print.html n16:209033 n17:ilene-moses-found-guilty-on-52-counts-of-fraud-money-laundering n22:InchoateCP%20online.pdf n23:june2001.pdf
owl:sameAs
n19:BvBUc wikidata:Q96372760
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Short_description dbt:Cite_BAILII dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_court_case dbt:Use_dmy_dates
dbp:caption
dbr:Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland
dbp:court
dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland
dbp:fullName
The Attorney General, Applicant v Albert John Oldridge, Respondent [2000] IESC 29
dbp:italicTitle
yes
dbp:judges
Keane C.J., Denham J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J.
dbp:keywords
dbr:Extradition Corresponding Offence dbr:Robbery dbr:Common_Law dbr:Conspiracy_to_defraud
dbo: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.
dbp:appealedFrom
0001-11-10
dbp:concurrence
Denham J, McGuinness J, Geoghegan J, Fennelly J
dbp:dateDecided
2000-12-19
dbp:decisionBy
Keane C.J.
dbp:numberOfJudges
5
dbp: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.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Attorney_General_v_Oldridge?oldid=995762782&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
8570
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Attorney_General_v_Oldridge