Regina v Ahmad and another; Regina v Fields and others – WLR Daily

Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264

‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’

WLR Daily, 18th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

R (Appellant) v Ahmad and another (Respndents); R (Respondent) v Fields and others (Appellants) – Supreme Court

R (Appellant) v Ahmad and another (Respndents); R (Respondent) v Fields and others (Appellants) [2014] UKSC 36 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 18th June 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Regina v Bina – WLR Daily

Regina v Bina [2014] WLR (D) 251

‘There was no limitation by which the offence of assisting unlawful immigration, contrary to section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, was inapplicable in relation to asylum seekers. Further, section 25(3) of that Act was permissive only, so that a matter of foreign law might be proved by methods such as expert evidence or admission as well as by a government-issued certificate as set out in section 25(3).’

WLR Daily, 11th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Last ditch attempt to thwart POCA in the consumer protection field – Six Pump Court

‘The Defendant was convicted of 8 counts of carrying on a consumer credit business without a licence (Section 39 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) ) (“illegal money lending”) and was sent to prison. Birmingham City Council whose team has vast experience in and has conduct of most prosecutions in this area of work applied under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) to confiscate the Defendant’s property and in particular a house he had purchased with the proceeds of his business. The case was not a “lifestyle” case.’

Full story (Word)

Six Pump Court, 12th May 2014

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

Comments Off

Failing to Make Crime Pay – BBC Law in Action

Posted June 5th, 2014 in artistic works, internet, news, privacy, proceeds of crime by sally

‘The government wants to do more to recover criminal assets. Joshua Rozenberg asks why – till now, at least – it has proved so difficult to deprive villains of their loot.’

Listen

BBC Law in Action, 3rd June 2014

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Canoe fraudster John Darwin order to surrender £40,000 to authorities – The Guardian

Posted May 29th, 2014 in fraud, news, pensions, proceeds of crime by michael

‘John Darwin, who faked his own death in a canoeing accident, has been ordered to pay a £40,000 lump sum to the authorities after two of his pensions matured.’

Full story

The Guardian, 29th May 2014

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off

Eastenders in Supreme Court: A1P1 filling in the gaps – UK Human Rights Blog

‘Not Albert Square, but it could be. The Crown Prosecution Service suspect two individuals of a massive duty/VAT fraud in their cash and carry businesses. The CPS go to the Crown Court (in the absence of the individuals) and get an order to appoint a receiver (i.e. a paid manager) to run the affairs of companies (Eastenders) in which the individuals are involved, as well as a restraint order against the individuals. Both receivership and restraint orders are set aside some months later by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the HMRC investigator’s statements were largely “broad and unsupported assertions”. Problem: by then the receiver had run up £772,547 in fees.’

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 15th May 2014

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

Barnes (as former Court Appointed Receiver) (Appellant) v The Eastenders Group and another (Respondents) – Supreme Court

Barnes (as former Court Appointed Receiver) (Appellant) v The Eastenders Group and another (Respondents) [2014] UKSC 26 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 8th May 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Women in burial and fraud case must repay £90,000 – BBC News

‘Two women who were jailed after burying a man in a garden and claiming his benefits have been ordered to repay almost £90,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act.’

Full story

BBC News, 28th April 2014

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Director of the Serious Fraud Office v B – WLR Daily

Director of the Serious Fraud Office v B [2014] UKSC 23; [2014] WLR (D) 151

‘A person who had been extradited to the United Kingdom for trial on a criminal charge, and who prior to his extradition had been guilty of contempt of court by disobeying a court order, could be punished for the contempt notwithstanding that it was not the basis of his extradition.’

WLR Daily, 2nd April 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

R v O’Brien (Appellant) – Supreme Court

R v O’Brien (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 23 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 2nd April 2014

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

Regina v Elsayed – WLR Daily

Posted March 14th, 2014 in confiscation, drug offences, law reports, proceeds of crime by tracey

Regina v Elsayed; [2014] EWCA Crim 333;  [2014] WLR (D)  125

‘For the purposes of confiscation proceedings the market value of drugs might vary depending for example on the time at which the drugs were obtained or the capacity or role of the person obtaining them and a judge was entitled to make findings of fact as to what a defendant would do with those drugs, ie sell them as a dealer at street level. Such findings of fact necessarily bore on the value of the property obtained by the defendant.’

WLR Daily, 4th March 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Wright (Robert) – WLR Daily

Posted February 24th, 2014 in confiscation, fees, fraud, law reports, proceeds of crime, sentencing, solicitors by sally

Regina v Wright (Robert) [2014] WLR (D) 84

‘Where an insurance company paid a defendant’s solicitors’ fees, for which he would otherwise have been liable, in connection with a false insurance claim he had made, he obtained a pecuniary advantage as a result of or in connection with his false claim, for the purposes of section 76(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Therefore, by section 76(4), those fees formed part of the defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct for the purposes of any confiscation order made under the 2002 Act.’

WLR Daily, 19th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Pace and another – WLR Daily

Posted February 21st, 2014 in appeals, attempts, law reports, proceeds of crime by sally

Regina v Pace and another [2014] EWCA Crim 186; [2014] WLR (D) 81

‘The mens rea of the offence of attempting to conceal, disguise or convert criminal property, contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, required that the defendant knew that the property was criminal property. Mere suspicion of that fact was insufficient.’

WLR Daily, 18th February 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Mackle (Patrick); Regina v Mackle (Plunkett Jude); Regina v Mackle (Benedict); Regina v McLaughlin (Henry) – WLR Daily

Posted February 5th, 2014 in confiscation, consent, joint enterprise, law reports, mistake, proceeds of crime by sally

Regina v Mackle (Patrick); Regina v Mackle (Plunkett Jude); Regina v Mackle (Benedict); Regina v McLaughlin (Henry) [2014] UKSC 5; [2014] WLR (D) 40

‘The fact that a confiscation order had been made by consent did not preclude a defendant from appealing against it on the ground that the consent had been based on a mistake of law as a result of wrong legal advice.’

WLR Daily, 29th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Padda – WLR Daily

Regina v Padda [2013] EWCA Crim 2330; [2013] WLR (D) 496

‘Section 22(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 preserved an obligation on the court and a discretion to make a confiscation order which was just and in so doing it could take into account all relevant circumstances and had to take into account the legislative policy in favour of maximising the recovery of the proceeds of crime, even from legitimately acquired assets.’

WLR Daily, 12th December 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Confiscation orders take only 26p in every £100 from criminals, NAO finds – The Guardian

‘Confiscation orders designed to ensure crime does not pay provide neither value for money nor a credible deterrent as perpetrators keep all but 26p in every £100 generated by the criminal economy, according to a damning report.’

Full story

The Guardian, 17th December 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Fields and others – WLR Daily

Regina v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042; [2013] WLR (D) 440

“In a joint benefit case, where each defendant was found to have obtained the joint benefit, he was not required by a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to disgorge benefit he had not obtained and a confiscation order made in the amount matching the correctly assessed benefit, was not disproportionate.”

WLR Daily, 14th November 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

National Crime Agency v Szepietowski and another – WLR Daily

Posted October 30th, 2013 in appeals, assets recovery, debts, equity, law reports, mortgages, proceeds of crime by sally

National Crime Agency v Szepietowski and another [2013] UKSC 65; [2013] WLR (D) 408

“The equitable remedy of marshalling was not available where the security held by the second chargee did not secure an underlying personal debt of his to the chargor. Therefore the National Crime Agency, having agreed to take a second mortgage over a property in settlement of its claim that it had been purchased by its owner with the proceeds of crime, could not, when the sale of the property only realised sufficient funds to pay off the debt secured under a first mortgage to a bank, require the bank to enforce its security against another property mortgaged by the owner to that bank.”

WLR Daily, 23rd October 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Szepietowski (Nee Seery) (Appellant) v The National Crime Agency (Respondent) – Supreme Court

Szepietowski (Nee Seery) (Appellant) v The National Crime Agency (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 65 | UKSC 2011/0196 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 23rd October 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off