‘This contribution presents a critical and practical analysis of the changes the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement brings to the recognition and enforcement of freezing and confiscation orders. It provides an overview of how this area of law may develop in the future post-Brexit.’
5SAH, 8th March 2021
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘A defendant who admitted fraud under the Right to Buy scheme has been ordered to pay back more than £90,000.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Data from 2019 suggests that 26% of prosecutions brought against women, of which only 10% are for indictable offences. The same data indicates that women account for just 5% of the prison population.’
Carmelite Chambers, March 2021
Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk
‘Richard Furlong and Alexandra Scott provide a brief guide to defending wives and partners in confiscation proceedings.’
Carmelite Chambers, 10th March 2021
Source: www.carmelitechambers.co.uk
‘A landlord who turned a property in Walthamstow into 13 flats has been ordered to pay nearly £200,000 in fines, costs and a confiscation order.’
Local Government Lawyer, 8th March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A rogue landlord who operated illegal rooming houses in London has been told to pay back £739,000 in illicit earnings or face jail, in one of the biggest confiscation orders of its kind, the council that investigated the case has said.’
The Guardian, 28th February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The appellant was sentenced on an unchallenged, written basis of plea to the effect that he was a mere custodian of drugs on behalf of another. In these circumstances the court was bound to apply the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) consistently with the facts of the basis of plea. On his basis, the appellant could not be said to have received the drugs for his own benefit and therefore he did not obtain property within the meaning of POCA 2002, s 76(4).’
5SAH, 11th February 2021
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘This case sets out the key principles and procedure to be followed under applications pursuant to section 10A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) where the court has to determine the extent of the interest of a third party in property held by a defendant that is likely to be realised or otherwise used to satisfy a confiscation order. The court held that where the prosecution intends to prove that a defendant has a beneficial interest in property and another holds, or may hold, an interest in that property, the burden and standard to be applied are those of the civil standard. Where matrimonial property is concerned, the court is entitled to look to the evidence and draw such inferences as they see fit to determine whether beneficial interest should follow legal title. Such evidence can include sham divorce proceedings and the use of property for a joint purpose.’
5SAH, 30th November 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘The case was concerned with a private prosecution for fraud offences, which had ultimately resulted in a £20 million confiscation order and £17 million compensation orders. The private prosecutor’s unsuccessful submissions against a third party in proceedings to enforce the confiscation order had led to the unusual spectacle of the Lord Chancellor intervening and persuading a High Court judge to reverse her decision on a jurisdictional question and set aside the order she had previously made. It prompted the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to conduct a comprehensive review of the primary and secondary legislation and the authorities on private prosecutions, confiscation, costs and the sometimes blurred lines between criminal and civil proceedings.’
CrimeCast.Law, 24th November 2020
Source: crimecast.law
‘The court held that a private prosecutor was entitled to recover their costs from central funds in relation to a High Court application for enforcement of a confiscation order. Such proceedings are “in respect of an indictable offence” for the purposes of section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (POA 1985). The court also held that, where the private prosecutor, in the same proceedings, had been ordered to pay the costs of a third party (having unsuccessfully asserted that the third party had been in receipt of a tainted gift), then those costs were also recoverable from central funds. While the confiscation proceedings in question had arisen under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988), the court held that the same principles would apply under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002).’
5SAH, 13th November 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal ruled that, as with other orders, the judge’s solemn pronouncement in court was the order and a failure to draw up a formal written document within the prescribed two-year period from the date of sentence did not invalidate it. In any event, the judge had provided written reasons, findings and figures which satisfied the statutory requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). The Court of Appeal ruled that in the absence of prejudice or unfairness resulting from an administrative or procedural breach, it could not be argued that a failure to draw up the order rendered it invalid. The second ground of appeal (that the judge had wrongly concluded that there were hidden assets) was unarguable and leave to appeal was refused.’
5SAH, 20th October 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘It is well established that private prosecutors may pursue confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court and that confiscation proceedings, as part of the sentencing process, are properly classified as part of the criminal proceedings. As such, if successful, a private prosecutor can expect to recover from central funds costs incurred in such proceedings, under s.17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which, as amended, provides that a court may award such costs in “any” proceedings “in respect of an indictable offence”; and, in any proceedings before a Divisional Court of the QBD or the Supreme Court “in respect of a summary offence”.’
2 Hare Court, 13th October 2020
Source: www.2harecourt.com
‘Around £10m of property has been surrendered in a major victory against some of northern England’s most dangerous criminals. The apartments and homes were given up to the National Crime Agency by a Leeds businessman who investigators suspect of being a major money-launderer.’
BBC News, 7th October 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘One of the ringleaders from the Hatton Garden security vault heist has today been ordered to pay £5,997,684.93. Michael Seed, known as “Basil”, 58, was convicted in March 2019 for his part in the £13.69 million heist, believed to be one of the largest burglaries in English history.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 1st October 2020
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘The Law Commission has launched a consultation on proposals to reform the confiscation regime which it says “could help recover an extra £8m per year from convicted criminals, by more accurately and efficiently determining a defendant’s criminal proceeds and more effectively enforcing confiscation orders”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st September 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Proposals to reform the confiscation regime could help recover an extra £8 million per year from convicted criminals, by more accurately and efficiently determining a defendant’s criminal proceeds and more effectively enforcing confiscation orders. The proposals are outlined in a consultation paper published today [17 September 2020] by the Law Commission of England and Wales.’
Law Commission, 17th September 2020
Source: www.lawcom.gov.uk
‘This case involved an appeal against a fine and a confiscation order following criminal proceedings for breach of an enforcement notice served under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). The appellant, Mr Roth, had converted a property into 12 self-contained flats without prior planning permission. His appeal against sentence was successful; insufficient credit had been given for his guilty plea in the Crown Court, where the case had been committed for the purposes of confiscation. The appeal against the confiscation order was advanced on three grounds: firstly, that the wording of the summons restricted the criminality to one day; secondly, that the rent received was not linked to the breach of the planning legislation; and thirdly, that it was disproportionate for the benefit figure to comprise the gross rental received. All three grounds were dismissed.’
5SAH, 24th August 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘The London Borough of Islington has lost “a most unusual” Court of Appeal action in which it argued that a confiscation order in a housing overcrowding case was too lenient.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th August 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected a case in which two men argued that a Crown Court judge miscalculated confiscation orders made following a prosecution by the Environment Agency.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th August 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A defendant who turned a house into 12 flats without planning permission has lost an appeal over the subsequent imposition of a confiscation order for more than £500,000.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025