Murray-Aynsley CJ:

The facts and arguments appear sufficiently from the Judgment.

In this case the appellant was convicted on four charges as follows:

1. That you being an authorised dealer in gold having on or about 28 June 1946 at Singapore purchased gold for the sum of $46,965.40 cts from one Kinstler, failed to offer the said gold for sale to an authorised dealer bank in accordance with the terms laid down by the Controller of Foreign Exchange in para. 2(a) of his letter of authorisation to you dated 15 February 1946 giving directions made by him in exercise of his powers under reg. 21 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150, and that you thereby committed an offence under regs. 4 and 5 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 punishable under reg. 7 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 36.

2. That you being an authorised dealer in gold having on or about 28 June 1946 at Singapore purchased gold for the sum of $46,965.40 cts from one Kinstler, failed to disclose the amount of gold bought, price paid and name of seller in the Return submitted to the Controller of Foreign Exchange, in accordance with the terms laid down by the Controller of Foreign Exchange in para. 2(c) of his letter of authorisation to you dated 15 February 1946 giving directions made by him in exercise of his powers under reg. 21 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 and that you thereby committed an offence under regs. 4 and 5 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 punishable under reg. 7 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 36.

3. That you being an authorised dealer in gold having on or about 7 December 1946 at Singapore purchased gold for the sum of $32,688.95 cts from one Kinstler, failed to offer the said gold for sale to an authorised dealer bank in accordance with the terms laid down by the Controller of Foreign Exchange in para. 2(a) of his letter of authorisation to you dated 15 February 1946 giving directions made by him in exercise of his powers under reg. 21 of the Finance

Regulations Proclamation No. 150, and that you thereby committed an offence under regs. 4 and 5 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 punishable under reg. 7 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 36.

4. That you being an authorised dealer in gold having on or about 7 December 1946 at Singapore purchased gold for the sum of $32,688.95 cts from one Kinstler failed to disclose the amount of gold bought, price paid and name of seller in the Return submitted to the Controller of Foreign Exchange, in accordance with the terms laid down by the Controller of Foreign Exchange in para. 2(c) of his letter of authorisation to you dated 15 February 1946 giving directions made by him in exercise of his powers under reg. 21 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 and that you thereby committed an offence under regs. 4 and 5 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 150 punishable under reg. 7 of the Finance Regulations Proclamation No. 36.

The facts are as follows.The appellant on two occasions bought what appeared to the principal witness to be gold nuggets.These nuggets were tested and the price was fixed by the result of such testing.It appears that what was purchased was refined and the resulting gold entered in the books as pure gold.Evidence was given, quite wrongly, that the seller was convicted in Australia of taking gold out of that country.At that time it was no offence to import gold into this country.It will be remembered that the prosperity of this country is based on the smuggling of rubber-seeds out of Brazil at a time when their export from that country was a serious offence.Whatever the appellant bought he did not offer for sale to an authorised dealer bank.This failure was said to contravene the terms of a letter of the Controller of Foreign Exchange dated 15 February 1946.This letter was written in exercise of powers under reg. 21 of the Finance Regulations.These Regulations were made under