It established an apparently high threshold for liability for dishonest assistance.
Mrs Elcombe’s husband, Mr Elcombe, laundered the proceeds of a gold bullion theft, by driving to Switzerland with cash hidden in the car, sometimes with her there with him.
She thought her husband was probably avoiding taxes but did not realize that she was assisting in a breach of trust.
[1] Rimer J held that Mrs Elcombe had not assisted her husband, because her accompaniment was merely ‘in the capacity’ as his wife rather than providing cover for money laundering.
Lord Hoffmann cast some doubt on the decision Barlow Clowes Ltd v Eurotrust Ltd[2] by saying that one cannot be dishonest about a thing which one thinks one is not doing.