“Convicted criminals who defy orders to contribute to their legal costs may have their cars seized by the Ministry of Justice and sold at auction from Tuesday.”
The Guardian, 20th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Austin (Herbert): [2013] EWCA Crim 1028; [2013] WLR (D) 257
“It was the Crown’s responsibility to carry out the duties of disclosure. Judicial involvement could only properly be triggered by an application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by the prosecutor or by the defence. There was no provision for a trial judge to superintend the decisions of disclosure made by the prosecution on his own motion by inspecting unused material himself.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The family of a grandfather convicted of attempting to recruit two undercover police officers to fight for the Taliban have spoken of their ‘torture’ as they face the prospect of becoming the first in Britain to have their home seized by the courts under anti-terrorism laws.”
The Independent, 12th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
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
“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.”
The Guardian, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A billionaire fraudster is set to lose three of his luxury properties in Britain’s most exclusive postcodes after a High Court ruling.”
The Independent, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“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.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 24th April 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Repeal section 41 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act to level the playing field and ease pressure on the public purse.”
The Lawyer, 15th April 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
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
“A company executive who led a Walter Mitty existence by stealing £160,000 to fund a luxury lifestyle and impress her millionaire father escaped jail after a judge heard she blamed herself for her father’s death.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Where restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were later set aside, the remuneration and expenses of the management receiver appointed under those orders were not recoverable either out of the assets of the companies to which the restraint orders related or from the Crown Prosecution Service.”
WLR Daily, 23rd November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v YDG: Regina v ZSB: [2012] EWCA Crim 2437; [2012] WLR (D) 332
“Where a judge had directed, pursuant to section 29 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, that there should be a preparatory hearing, and the conditions of that section were satisfied, he had no power to revoke his direction.”
WLR, 20th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“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.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th November 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Regina v Waya: [2012] UKSC 51; [2012] WLR (D) 324
“The statutory object of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was to remove from a defendant the proceeds of his crime and a confiscation order made thereunder was not intended to be an additional financial penalty similar to a fine. A confiscation order which was disproportionate to the benefit obtained by the defendant from his crime would be a violation of article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However section 6(5) of the 2002 Act could, pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, be read and given effect in a manner which was compatible with the rights under article 1.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
R v Varma [2012] UKSC 42; [2012] WLR (D) 270
“The Crown Court had the power and, in most cases, where the criteria in section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were satisfied, the duty to make a confiscation order against a defendant following conviction for an offence in respect of which the defendant had received an absolute or a conditional discharge.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A Norwich Crown Court judge has imposed a £1.4 million fine on a landlord under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) for converting a house in north-west London into 12 flats without planning permission.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th October 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“A great-grandfather has been jailed for 18 years after he was found guilty of drug dealing and money laundering.”
BBC News, 7th September 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The widow of a Royal Navy diver has been jailed after admitting fraudulently pocketing more than £144,000 from the Armed Forces’ pension scheme.”
Daily Telegraph, 29th August 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024