POSHFA! – NearlyLegal

Posted October 15th, 2013 in confiscation, crime, housing, landlord & tenant, news, rent by sally

“The Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act comes into force tomorrow (Tuesday 15 October 2013) in England only. The text of the Act is here. A key point is the introduction of ‘Unlawful Profit Orders’, which get around the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sumal v Newham London Borough Council [2012] EWCA Crim 1840 that confiscation of rent was not possible because ‘the continued receipt of the rent was not the product of the appellants crime’. (Admittedly that was a prosecution for an unlicensed property in a selective licensing area under section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004, but the point about confiscation not being enabled under statute had broader application).”

Full story

NearlyLegal, 14th October 2013

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Regina (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice – WLR Daily

Regina (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice: [2013] EWHC 2481 (Admin);   [2013] WLR (D)  344

“Where the Crown Court fixed a term of imprisonment in default of a sum recoverable under a confiscation order the words ‘at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 meant the time when the default term was activated by the magistrates’ court, not the time when it was fixed by the Crown Court, for the purposes of calculating a reduction in the term of imprisonment.”

WLR Daily, 4th September 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Syrian refugee jailed in UK for using false papers – The Guardian

“Campaigners say conviction of asylum seeker for using fake papers and similar cases is abuse of immigration law.”

Full  story

The Guardian, 24th August 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Regina v Chapman – WLR Daily

Regina v Chapman [2013] EWCA Crim 1370; [2013] WLR (D) 318

“Once an appeal had been constituted by filing a notice of appeal in time or by obtaining an extension of time from the court, the order of the court below was subject to review and not final and the court could not justify refusing to allow the defendant to take advantage of a change in the law which occurred between the filing of the notice of appeal and the hearing itself.”

WLR Daily, 29th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Sale – WLR Daily

Regina v Sale [2013] EWCA Crim 1306; [2013] WLR (D) 304

“Where the defendant was the sole shareholder of a company for which he had secured commercial contracts by corruption, the assessment of the defendant’s criminal benefit for the purposes of a confiscation order could not be based on the turnover from the contracts because that would be disproportionate but should be restricted to the gross profit earned by the company together with any other pecuniary advantage which flowed from the corruption.”

WLR Daily, 25th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Bestel; Regina v Raza; Regina v Bashir – WLR Daily

Posted July 23rd, 2013 in appeals, confiscation, law reports, sentencing, time limits by tracey

Regina v Bestel;  Regina v Raza;  Regina v Bashir [2013] EWCA Crim 1305 ; [2013] WLR (D) 296

“A change in the law since the date of conviction or plea of guilty was not regarded as good reason for granting an extension of time in which to appeal unless substantial injustice would follow from application of the principle of finality. In cases in which the benefit from criminal conduct had been assessed on a basis which was, if considered in the light of a change in the law, disproportionate, substantial injustice would not be established if an application to the Crown Court for rescission of the confiscation order would ameliorate the stringency of the application of the finality principle.”

WLR Daily, 19th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Harvey – WLR Daily

Posted July 9th, 2013 in appeals, confiscation, crime, law reports, sentencing, valuation by sally

Regina v Harvey [2013] EWCA Crim 1104; [2013] WLR (D) 268

“If a defendant obtained chattels as a result of his criminal conduct and used them over a substantial period, materially reducing their value before restoring them to their true owners, the court should not give credit for their residual value when making a confiscation order.”

WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Jawad – WLR Daily

Regina v Jawad [2013] EWCA Crim 644; [2013] WLR (D) 209

“There was no mandatory duty to take the confiscation order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 into account when deciding on a compensation order, but the question of compensation might have been relevant to disproportion, if compensation meant that money restored to the loser would have been counted again in the confiscation order, so it was necessary to consider both issues together.”

WLR Daily, 3rd May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Illegal waste boss jailed after arrest on Heathrow runway – The Guardian

Posted May 28th, 2013 in confiscation, news, proceeds of crime, sentencing, waste by sally

“A 55-year old man was arrested on the runway of Heathrow airport as he tried to flee the country to avoid paying back the proceeds of his illegal waste business.”

Full story

The Guardian, 23rd May 2013

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Regina v Johal – WLR Daily

Posted May 16th, 2013 in appeals, confiscation, criminal procedure, delay, law reports by sally

Regina v Johal [2013] EWCA Crim 647; [2013] WLR (D) 175

“When a court postponed confiscation proceedings the omission of a ‘specified period’ of postponement was plainly a procedural rather than a substantive error so that a court would not be deprived of its duty to make a confiscation order where such a breach did not prejudice the defendant in any way. Alternatively, if such a failure was indeed procedural it would fall within the ambit of section 14(11) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which stipulated that such a failure should not be the basis for quashing an otherwise valid confiscation order.”

WLR Daily, 19th April 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Important guidance on criminal confiscation: R v Mahmood – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted April 25th, 2013 in appeals, confiscation, criminal procedure, news, proceeds of crime by sally

“The recent Court of Appeal judgment in R v Mahmood [2013] EWCA 325 provides important guidance on several important issues which often arise in criminal confiscation proceedings before the Crown Court.”

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 24th April 2013

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Regina v Hampshire County Council – WLR Daily

Regina v Hampshire County Council [2013] WLR (D) 117

“There was no reason to stay confiscation proceedings where a trademark offence had been committed, because trademark offences were lifestyle, repeat offences, which did real damage to those entitled to the profits of a trademark and deprived the manufacturers of the legitimate fruits of the research and development of their product and it was proceeds which mattered rather than blame.”

WLR Daily, 20th March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Mahmood – WLR Daily

Posted March 26th, 2013 in confiscation, conspiracy, crime, law reports, proceeds of crime, sentencing by sally

Regina v Mahmood [2013] EWCA Crim 325; [2013] WLR (D) 116

“When calculating the expenditure incurred during a conspiracy, the statutory assumption in section 10(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 did not mean that each conspirator was treated as having incurred all of the expenditure and evidence was required about the particular conspirator who had incurred it.”

WLR Daily, 22nd March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

R v Druce – why the truth alone is not always enough – Halsbury’s Law Exchange

Posted February 19th, 2013 in appeals, confiscation, criminal justice, news by sally

“The judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Druce [2013] EWCA 40 delivered on 31 January is a stark lesson in how confiscation proceedings can go badly wrong for an ill-prepared defendant.”

Full story

Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 19th February 2013

Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Isle of Wight £90m cocaine yacht trial: Two men jailed – BBC News

Posted January 30th, 2013 in confiscation, drug trafficking, news, sentencing by sally

“Two men caught in possession of £90m worth of cocaine on a yacht off the Isle of Wight have been jailed.”

Full story

BBC News, 30th January 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Robert Coulson jailed for smuggling cannabis – BBC News

Posted January 25th, 2013 in confiscation, drug trafficking, news, recidivists, sentencing by tracey

” 71-year-old man who admitted trying to smuggle more than £168,000 worth of
cannabis through a ferry port has been jailed for three years and nine months.”

Full story

BBC News, 25th January 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Isle of Wight £90m cocaine yacht trial: Piotr Pachnia guilty – BBC News

Posted January 24th, 2013 in confiscation, drug trafficking, news by sally

“A man has been found guilty of possessing £90m of cocaine found hidden on a yacht off the Isle of Wight.”

Full story

BBC News, 23rd January 2013

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Almost £2 billion in court fines and confiscation orders remain unpaid – Daily Telegraph

Posted January 21st, 2013 in assets recovery, confiscation, courts, debts, fines, news by sally

“Nearly £2 billion in court fines and confiscation orders remain unpaid, official figures show, as the Government admitted it needed to do more to tackle the debt.”

Full story

Daily Telegraph, 19th January 2013

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

Rich crooks net vast legal aid sums – BBC News

Posted November 26th, 2012 in assets recovery, budgets, confiscation, costs, drug offences, fraud, legal aid, news by sally

“Dozens of super-rich criminals – some worth tens of millions – have received vast sums in legal aid despite their illicit fortunes, an investigation has revealed.”

Full story

BBC News, 26th November 2012

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

The right of property under A1P1- Supreme Court sees that it has teeth – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted November 19th, 2012 in confiscation, human rights, mortgages, news, proceeds of crime by sally

“Traditionally, the qualified right to peaceful possession of property conferred by Article 1 of the 1st Protocol (A1P1) has been thought of as a rather feeble entitlement, easily outweighed by public interests. After all, every day of the week, the modern state affects that right – think taxes or planning restrictions, or business bans arising out of public health concerns (e.g. see here), where removal and confiscation or restriction on what we do with property is readily accepted. Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) needs a bit of remedial HR surgery as and when its blunderbuss rules would otherwise have a disproportionate effect on those affected. But the importance of the ruling extends far beyond the specific statutory context.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 18th November 2012

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com