“He was the very embodiment of the flash City trader – a self-made millionaire who rode the wave of the 1980s big bang to become a financial player famed for throwing lavish parties attended by celebrities and leading business figures.”
The Guardian, 5th November 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A freight distribution manager who hid more than 14 million cigarettes in refrigerated lorries carrying fruit and vegetables, to evade an estimated £2.5 million in duty and VAT, has been jailed, according to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).”
The Independent, 2nd November 2012
Source: www.independent.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
“Courts have the power to make confiscation orders where an offender is absolutely or conditionally discharged.”
The Guardian, 10th October 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Sumal & Sons (Properties) Ltd: [2012] EWCA Crim 1840; [2012] WLR (D) 247
“A landlord who committed an offence of managing an unlicensed house, contrary to section 95(1) of the Housing Act 2004, did not ‘obtain’ property ‘as a result of or in connection with’ his criminal conduct, for the purposes of section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by the receipt of rent. Therefore a court sentencing a landlord for such an offence could not impose a confiscation order in the sum of the rent received.”
WLR Daily, 8th August 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A disclosure order obtained in civil recovery proceedings did not authorise sending information notices to persons who were outside the United Kingdom.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Two ‘notorious’ brothers from Wolverhampton have been jailed for their part in a £34m tax fraud.”
BBC News, 27th July 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Individuals’ right not to self-incriminate themselves is lost if it is alleged that they misused confidential technical or commercial information, the UK Supreme Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th July 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Regina v Gangar and another [2012] EWCA Crim 1378; [2012] WLR (D) 185
“At the available asset stage of confiscation proceedings involving more than one defendant, a defendant’s partial interest in property was realisable, but had to be limited to his beneficial interest rather than treated as an 100% interest.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Albanian car wash owner Defrim Paci, has been ordered to handover £60,000 of his criminal earnings after he was found guilty of employing illegal immigrants in the UK and laundering money.”
UK Border Agency. 24th May 2012
Source: www.ukba/homeoffice.gov.uk
Regina (Horne and another) v Central Criminal Court [2012] EWHC 1350 (Admin); [2012] WLR (D) 156
“A ‘confiscation investigation’ within Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 could take place after a confiscation order had been made. Therefore a judge could have jurisdiction to issue a search warrant or disclosure order, pursuant to sections 352 and 357 respectively of the 2002 Act, provided they were limited to investigating the extent or whereabouts of property obtained as a result of or in connection with the commission of an offence.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bagnall; Regina v Sharma [2012] EWCA Crim 677; [2012] WLR (D) 118
“Where, in confiscation proceedings, the Crown accused an offender of an additional specific offence for which he had not been prosecuted and adduced evidence to make that accusation good, that did not amount to the bringing of a new charge. Since the defendant was not at risk of any further conviction and there was no finding of guilt, the findings reached by the judge, applying the statutory assumptions, merely went to the amount of the order the court was obliged to make. There was no unfairness in requiring a defendant to show that the source of his assets was legitimate.”
WLR Daily, 18th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Seven firearms, about 50 replica guns and nearly 3,000 knives have been confiscated in courts in the east of England over the past three years, the BBC can reveal.”
BBC News, 9th April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“About £2bn is due to the Ministry of Justice in uncollected confiscation orders and fines, said a report published on Tuesday.”
The Guardian, 20th March 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Ahmad and another [2012] EWCA Crim 391; [2012] WLR (D) 62
“Sums banked as the result of the sale or purported sale of goods by a buffer company in the course of a carousel fraud generating false claims for the repayment of VAT were not property obtained ‘in connection with [the] commission’ of the offence within section 71(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”
WLR Daily, 2nd March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A businessman, cleared of three murder charges and drugs dealing, has been ordered to hand his home to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca).”
BBC News, 5th March 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
In re Peacock (Secretary of State for the Home Dept intervening): [2012] UKSC 5; [2012] WLR (D) 42
“Where a compensation order had been made against a convicted drug trafficker under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (which applied where the relevant conviction was before 24 March 2003) to recover an amount equal to his benefit from that criminal activity, but the actual amount of the order was for a lesser sum as being his only realisable assets at the time of conviction, the court could later increase the amount of the order under section 16 of the Act to take account of assets he had legitimately acquired after release from prison.”
WLR Daily, 22nd February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v James and another; [2011] EWCA Crim 2991; [2011] WLR (D) 389
“Expenditure on scales, machinery parts, rent and wages for casual workers were not sums obtained as a result of or in connection with criminal conduct, in this case the evasion of excise duty on tobacco products, and therefore did not amount to a benefit from criminal conduct for the purposes of section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Barnett; [2011] EWCA Crim 2936; [2011] WLR (D) 385
“In relation to proceedings in which a defendant’s benefit from general criminal conduct was assessed the court was ‘entitled’ to make the assumptions provided for in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 even if the prosecution had not given the written preliminary notice provided for in section 71(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) so held in allowing an appeal by the defendant, Ian Stanley Barnett, against a confiscation order made by Judge Hernandez in the Crown Court at Manchester on 2 February 2011 on the basis of an assessment that the defendant’s financial benefit from his general criminal conduct was £5,085,22·70 and substituting the figure of £873,010.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Crown Court did not have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to all aspects of the enforcement of confiscation orders.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025