Acquittal vs. Non-liability in Jordanian Money Laundering Cases

Understanding judicial decisions within the Jordanian legal system requires familiarity with specific legal terminology and concepts. In criminal proceedings, particularly for complex charges such as money laundering, two significant outcomes that result in the defendant not being convicted are ‘Acquittal’ (البراءة) and a finding of ‘Non-liability’ or ‘Lack of Criminal Responsibility’ (عدم المسؤولية). Although both outcomes mean the accused avoids punishment for the charge in question, they stem from distinct legal grounds and reasoning. The following explanation details these concepts, their differences, and their application under Jordanian law.
To understand the difference between “Acquittal” (البراءة) and “Non-liability/Lack of Responsibility” (عدم المسؤولية) in money laundering cases according to Jordanian law, and to clarify the types (reasons for) acquittal and when a judgment of non-liability is issued, here are the details:
1. The Difference Between Acquittal and Non-liability in a Money Laundering Case Judgment:

• Acquittal (البراءة):
  • Means the court has concluded that the defendant did not commit the crime they were charged with, or that the evidence presented against them is insufficient to prove their commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., the elements of the crime were not proven, whether the physical element (actus reus) or the mental element (mens rea), such as criminal intent and the defendant’s knowledge that the funds were illicit).
  • A judgment of acquittal means that the criminal act was not proven against the defendant.
  • Acquittal results in clearing the charge against the defendant as if they were never accused in relation to that specific case. It is issued when the Public Prosecution fails to prove the elements of the money laundering offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Non-liability / Lack of Responsibility (عدم المسؤولية):
  • Means the court may be convinced that the defendant committed the physical act constituting the crime (or part of it), but they are not criminally responsible for this act due to the existence of a reason among the grounds precluding punishment or lack of criminal capacity at the time the act was committed.
  • A judgment of non-liability does not necessarily negate the occurrence of the act, but it negates the perpetrator’s criminal responsibility for it due to their specific condition at the time of the act (such as insanity, overwhelming duress, or being a minor below the age of discernment).
  • A judgment of non-liability may result in other non-punitive measures being taken against the person, such as confinement in a therapeutic facility in cases of established insanity.

Conclusion: Acquittal relates to the failure to prove the defendant committed the crime or insufficient evidence, while non-liability relates to the existence of a legal impediment preventing the defendant from being held criminally responsible for an act they may have committed.
2. Types of (Reasons for) Acquittal Issued in Money Laundering Cases:
The law does not formally classify “types” of acquittal literally, but the reasons for issuing a judgment of acquittal in money laundering cases can be understood as follows:

• Acquittal due to Insufficient Evidence: This is the most common reason. The Public Prosecution fails to provide conclusive and sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed the act of money laundering (e.g., proving the illicit source of the funds, proving the defendant’s knowledge thereof, or proving they conducted transactions to conceal the source).
• Acquittal due to Doubt: If the court retains reasonable doubt about any essential element of the crime or about attributing the act to the defendant, it must acquit based on the principle “doubt is interpreted in favor of the accused” (in dubio pro reo).
• Acquittal because the Act Does Not Constitute a Crime: Certain facts may be proven, but the court finds that these facts do not constitute the crime of money laundering as defined in Jordanian law (Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Law). For example, it might not be proven that the funds originated from a “Predicate Offense” as legally defined.

3. When is a Judgment of Non-liability Issued According to Jordanian Law?
A judgment of criminal “non-liability” is issued based on the provisions of the Jordanian Penal Code (and the Code of Criminal Procedure for regulating procedures) in specific cases that prevent holding a person criminally liable. The most important are:

• Lack of Capacity due to Insanity or Mental Disability: If it is proven to the court (usually based on psychiatric expert reports) that the defendant lacked cognition or volition (free will) at the time of committing the act due to insanity or a mental disability that rendered them incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong. (Article 92 of the Penal Code).
• Minority (Juvenile Status): If the perpetrator of the act had not reached a certain age making them criminally responsible according to the Jordanian Juveniles Law. Treatment varies depending on the age group, and extreme youth may lead to complete lack of responsibility.
• Physical or Moral Duress (Overwhelming Compulsion): If the person was forced to commit the crime under a grave and imminent threat that they could not otherwise avert, rendering them completely devoid of free will. (Article 89 of the Penal Code).
• Necessity: In very rare circumstances, if a person was compelled to commit a crime to avert a grave and imminent danger threatening themselves or others, was not at fault for the danger’s occurrence, and the crime committed was the only means to avoid the greater harm. (Article 90 of the Penal Code).
• Involuntary Intoxication: If the loss of cognition or volition resulted from poisoning with intoxicating or narcotic substances administered forcibly or without the person’s knowledge. (Article 93 of the Penal Code).

In these situations, after the court verifies the existence of one of these grounds, it issues a judgment declaring the defendant not responsible for the act attributed to them.