‘A council’s bid to obtain a confiscation order over planning enforcement breaches has been halted after a ruling that the indication of pleas of guilty on the two defendants’ behalf and in their presence by counsel appearing for them in the magistrates’ court was an incurable error.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘On the 1st June 2015, the Serous Crime Act 2015 enacted section 10a of POCA 2002. The section is designed to allow Crown Courts to make a determination on third party rights at the confiscation hearing rather than leaving the decision to the enforcement hearing in the Magistrates Court or in another forum such as in the family courts.’
Full story (PDF)
Drystone Chambers, 15th May 2017
Source: www.drystone.com
‘Less than a month after local authority lawyers were told to consider the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) as a way to generate income, an East London council has announced its biggest court payout to date. The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham said that an east London landlord has been given a £222,000 confiscation order following a POCA application brought by the council before Snaresbrook Crown Court.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 24th April 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Gaining a Confiscation Order is often seen to be the final hurdle. It increasingly is not: enforcement of the order is. This is a problem that affects all confiscation orders, in all jurisdictions, and has drawn the attention of the National Audit Office here in England and Wales.’
Full story (PDF)
Drystone Chambers, 5th April 2017
Source: www.drystone.com
‘Former gangster Terry Adams has lost his appeal over how much he must repay from his days of crime.’
BBC News, 27th March 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A 17-year-old who admitted hacking offences linked to the TalkTalk data breach has been given a 12-month youth rehabilitation order and had his smartphone and computer hard drive confiscated.’
The Guardian, 13th December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A convicted mortgage fraudster has been stripped of more than £4 million in criminal assets after prosecutors forced him to sell off his property empire or face further time in prison.’
Crown Prosecution Service, 18th November 2016
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2025