‘The current regime of confiscation orders is failing to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. The Law Commission of England and Wales must seize the opportunity to reform the law in this area as part of its 13th programme of law reform.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A convicted tobacco smuggler has been stripped of a prime parcel of riverside land in Kent to meet his more than £4m debt to the public purse. ‘
The Guardian, 24th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Criminals who have failed to pay the proceeds gained from their crimes should not be released from prison until they have paid up, a new report suggests.’
The Independent, 15th July 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘It should be a separate criminal offence to refuse to hand over money and assets derived from crime, a group of MPs has said. The system for enforcing confiscation orders imposed by the courts is not working, a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee added.’
Home Affairs select committee press release
BBC News, 15th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In 2006 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings his criminal benefit was assessed at over £800,000 but, as he had no available assets, a confiscation order was made in the nominal sum of £1. Subsequently, the defendant having bought a house, the prosecution applied under section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for reconsideration of the available amount. In July 2015 the amount of the confiscation order was varied from £1 to £108,010, the value of the defendant’s equity in the house, with five years’ imprisonment to be served in default of payment. The defendant made a late application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence. The application was dismissed except that it was adjourned as to two of the proposed grounds of appeal, namely (i) that the default sentence was excessive because, at the time of the offence, the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of a confiscation order in relation to a sum between £100,00 and £250,000 was three years and the judge had therefore been wrong to have regard to the increased maximum period provided for in section 10 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which, by regulation 3(g) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 June 2015; (ii) that the term imposed was manifestly excessive.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Earlier intervention and more formal measures of success are needed if confiscation orders are to be successfully used by the UK courts to deprive fraudsters of the proceeds of their crimes.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina v Brooks [2016] EWCA Crim 44
‘Following the seizure of a large consignment of cocaine by the Irish navy, the defendant was convicted in the United Kingdom of conspiracy to import drugs and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the recorder ruled that the defendant had a criminal lifestyle for the purposes of section 75 of the 2002 Act. He assessed the defendant’s benefit as being a little over £3·6m, comprising the value of the drugs at just under £3m and a 50% interest in a Spanish property valued at £296,000, and held that the recoverable amount was the same as the benefit figure on the basis that, although the defendant’s identifiable assets amounted to just under £1,400, he had undisclosed assets which he had failed to show were less than his benefit. Accordingly, the recorder made a confiscation order in the sum of the benefit figure. The defendant appealed against the order on the grounds that the recorder had erred in (i) including the value of the drugs in the benefit figure on the basis that the defendant had purchased them or contributed to their purchase, when there was no evidence that the defendant had done so; (ii) including the value of the drugs in the recoverable amount, when they had been seized by the Irish authorities; and (iii) including the value of the property in the recoverable amount, when under Spanish law the defendant’s partner was the legal and equitable owner.’
WLR Daily, 10th March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Tom Hayes, the former star trader serving an 11-year jail sentence for manipulating Libor interest rates, has been ordered to pay £878,806 after a court ruled the money was the proceeds of crime.’
The Guardian, 23rd March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Slough Borough Council last month secured a £300,000 confiscation order, its largest ever under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
Local Government Lawyer, 18th November 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A former prison officer has been jailed for 12 months for selling stories about George Michael’s time behind bars to the Sun.’
The Guardian, 3rd November 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘New figures showing that criminals have still to re-pay a total of £774 million in ill-gotten gains highlights the need for law enforcement agencies to give greater priority to asset recovery in their criminal investigations, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th October 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A solicitor has been jailed for five and a half years for his role in a £4.3m land-banking scam.’
Legal Futures, 3rd June 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The self-styled ‘Lord’ Davenport’s fine is over criminal profits he made selling London mansion used for sex parties.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st May 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Ascribing benefit figures to immature plants is an increasingly common feature of cannabis plant confiscation proceedings.’
Park Square Barristers, 19th March 2015
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
Regina v Doran and another [2015] EWCA Crim 384; [2015] WLR (D) 129
‘A surveillance operation mounted by Revenue and Customs because they suspected that a consignment of cigarettes were being imported with the purpose of evading the duty payable did not result in a disconnection between the goods and the importers. Revenue and Customs were thereby monitoring the import, not controlling it, so that a judge was entitled to find that the importers were “holding” the goods within the meaning of regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 and, by that means, were retaining their connection with the goods at the excise duty point.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Kakkad [2015] EWCA Crim 385; [2015] WLR (D) 130
‘In confiscation proceedings, in relation to the benefit to be assessed, the market value of cocaine, to the extent that it was matched by an available cutting agent, was that which would have been obtained by cutting it with that available agent. However, the value of cocaine which was not matched by an equivalent amount of cutting agent in the defendant’s control could not properly be valued on any basis other than its undiluted wholesale form.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On Tuesday 17 March 2015, The Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by Robert Doran and Patrick Gray to write off confiscation orders made against them for £1,456,325.00 and £1,244,982.44 respectively, finding in favour of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).’
Crown Prosecution Service, 18th March 2015
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
Regina v McDowell; Regina v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173; [2015] WLR (D) 84
‘Where trading receipts were obtained as a result of lawful trading activity rather than a failure to register particulars with the local authority under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 before carrying on business as a scrap metal dealer, the trading activity was not criminal conduct from which benefit accrued, and the trading receipts were excluded from the criminal lifestyle provisions under section 75(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Mobile phone companies will be forced to cut off signals to handsets being used by inmates in prisons, under planned new laws.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Monday sees the return of the government’s Counter Terrorism and Security Bill to the Commons where MPs will get their say on the legislation’s most controversial measure: should ministers be able to ban British citizens from coming home?’
BBC News, 15th December 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024