01
Legal issue
The distinction between an instantaneous and continuing offence depends on the conduct itself and renewed intervention of the accused’s will; continuing consequences alone are insufficient.
02
Published principle
The Arabic judgment published by the Supreme Court is the primary source. The Russian, English and Chinese texts on this page are unofficial Smart Global Capital editorial accounts.
The official source contains the full judgment together with its published headnote and legal rule; the editorial account does not replace the Arabic original.
The decisive distinction between an instantaneous and continuing offence is the nature of its constituent conduct, whether positive or negative, act or omission. An offence completed when the act occurs is instantaneous; one in which the unlawful state persists through successive and renewed intervention of the offender’s will is continuing. Time spent preparing for the act, or a later period in which only its effects remain, is not decisive. The published headnote characterises bringing currency into the Sultanate outside banking channels and without customer identification as a continuing offence.
03
Applicability
Despite the headnote’s formulation, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment because the lower court had not identified the alleged further positive activity, the accused’s role in it or whether conduct—not merely effects—continued. The case does not support automatic retroactive application of the AML law.
04
Related instruments
- Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Law, Royal Decree No. 30/2016, Articles 33, 36 and 96
- Criminal Procedure Law, Article 220
05