Regina v Ward (Barry) [2010] WLR (D) 191
“The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a refusal by a judge in the Crown Court, on an application under s 23 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to vary a confiscation order.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Courts in England and Wales are owed £1.3bn in unpaid fines, confiscation and compensation orders.”
BBC News, 5th July 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Fresh from its disastrous showing at the ballot box on 6 May, the British National party now faces financial turmoil with its assets threatened by court action. The high court is to decide whether Nick Griffin and two other BNP officials should face contempt of court proceedings in which their assets could be confiscated under a ‘writ of sequestration’. The assets include Griffin’s MEP salary, investments and pensions and any property that they might own. The case shows that no political party is above the law.”
The Guardian, 28th June 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“For the purposes of tobacco smuggling cases there was unlikely to be any incompatibility between the rules which made those liable under the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 or the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 to pay duty and those made liable by Council Directive 92/12/EEC.”
WLR Daily, 12th May 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
R v Modjiri [2010] EWCA Crim 829; [2010] WLR (D) 99
“The concern of s 79(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is limited to the valuation of property and does not extend to the realisation of property, so that it does not have to be assumed that a beneficial interest in property has to be sold separately from the property and, for the purposes of making a confiscation order, the correct basis on which to proceed is to take into account the due proportion of the proceeds which the defendant would receive on sale of the property.”
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A court had jurisdiction to make a management receivership order over any property on the basis that it was realisable property where an issue was still to be determined between the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office and an interested third party as to the beneficial interest in such property.”
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Iqbal [2010] WLR (D) 23
“An application for the time for proceedings for a confiscation order to be postponed, or for a postponement to be extended, may be made only during the permitted period provided for in s 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 4th February 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are receiving personal bonuses linked to their success in confiscating criminal assets, The Times has learnt.”
The Times, 31st October 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Thousands of tobacco smugglers could be due compensation because their assets were wrongly confiscated, customs officials have admitted.”
BBC News, 20th August 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
R v Nelson; R v Pathak; R v Paulet [2009] EWCA Crim 1573; [2009] WLR (D) 266
“Confiscation proceedings properly taken in accordance with statutory provisions should not be stayed as an abuse of process on the ground that the judge considered that they might produce an oppressive result.”
WLR Daily, 30th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Knaggs [2009] EWCA Crim 1363; [2009] WLR (D) 239
“A defendant who had pleaded guilty to an offence without any challenge to the facts by way of a Newton hearing was not thereby debarred, as a matter of law, from challenging the prosecution evidence for the purposes of a confiscation hearing.”
WLR Daily, 14th July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct in respect of an offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“Where a defendant had been sentenced to an absolute or conditional discharge, the crown court had no power to impose a confiscation order.”
The Times, 1st July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Where a confiscation order was made pursuant to s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or s 6(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against a defendant in respect of his benefit from his criminal conduct for the offence of acting in contravention of an order or undertaking disqualifying him from being a company director, that benefit was not simply to be assessed as the turnover of the relevant company, but as the value of the property obtained by the defendant himself, as determined in accordance with ordinary common law principles of entitlement and ownership.”
WLR Daily, 30th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R v Clarke (Joseph) [2009] EWCA Crim 1074; [2009] WLR (D) 188
“The Crown Court had no power to impose a confiscation order against a defendant following conviction of an offence for which he or she had been sentenced by way of an absolute or conditional discharge.”
WLR Daily, 16th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
House of Lords
“It was consistent with both the language and spirit of the statutory scheme for making confiscation orders for the importation of prohibited drugs to take account of the black market value of such drugs when valuing the benefit obtained by the defendant at the time of their illegal importation.”
Times Law Reports, 12th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R v Islam [2009] UKHL 30; [2009] WLR (D) 177
“When assessing the ‘market value’ of goods for the purposes of making a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the court was not restricted to looking at the value of the goods in a legitimate market but was required to look at the nature of the goods and the context it which the assessment was being made. If the only market in which the goods in question could be bought and sold was an illegitimate one, the court was entitled to take account of the price which a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in that illegitimate market in order to assess the benefit obtained by the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 10th June 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A defendant has escaped confiscation proceedings because she was unable to find an advocate willing to accept the legal aid rate to represent her. The court’s decision, upheld in the Court of Appeal, will fuel an ongoing dispute over the levels of legal aid fees.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 4th June 2009
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“On 29 April 2009 the House of Lords confirmed that the prosecution are entitled in confiscation proceedings (i) to prove that the defendant had committed offences other than those to which he had pleaded or in respect of which he had been convicted and (ii) to invite the court to estimate the profit that he must have made from those offences: R. v. Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19.”
The Bar Council, 8th May 2009
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024