Overt Act Requirement

Criminal Conspiracy Overt acts and co-conspirator The overt acts are often referred to as very convincing evidence of the sincerity of a conspiracy agreement. Indeed in most of the conspiracy cases there are evidences of overt acts. It is the overt act that will be a proof of the objective of the conspiracy, intent to achieve the objective and furtherance of the conspiracy or agreement into conspiracy. The overt acts are considered in most cases as the theory of the cases as opposed to the actual element of conspiracy.

It is an outward act that is committed in the bid to pursue the actual crime (U.S. Legal, 201). Evidence of the overt act is often required in some conspiracy statutes as evidence of the intent to carry out a crime and also the proof of the intent to accomplish the objective of the conspiracy. An overt act is also viewed as important in determining whether an offense was completed or not and the party to the conspiracy must perform some overt act to prove this.

It is worth noting that in common law there is no need for an overt act in order to constitute the offence of conspiracy, yet in other jurisdictions, the proof of an overt act is necessary to secure an indictment of existence of conspiracy (Anderson G., 2012:Pp86). There are however cases that do not require overt acts in order to prove the existence of conspiracy and one such is money laundering and drug conspiracy. An example was seen in the U.S.A. Vs.

Whitfield (2005) where it was determined "that conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.