New crackdown on corrupt lawyers who help criminals – BBC News
‘Lawyers, couriers and accountants could be jailed if they turn a blind eye to criminal activity they profit from, under Home Office plans.’
BBC News, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: confiscation
Offenders choosing jail time ahead of paying confiscation orders: MPs – Local Government Lawyer
‘Offenders are choosing to spend extra time in jail rather than pay confiscation orders and the sanctions for such non-payment do not work, the Public Accounts Committee has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Regina v Elsayed – WLR Daily
Regina v Elsayed; [2014] EWCA Crim 333; [2014] WLR (D) 125
‘For the purposes of confiscation proceedings the market value of drugs might vary depending for example on the time at which the drugs were obtained or the capacity or role of the person obtaining them and a judge was entitled to make findings of fact as to what a defendant would do with those drugs, ie sell them as a dealer at street level. Such findings of fact necessarily bore on the value of the property obtained by the defendant.’
WLR Daily, 4th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
London Fire Brigade secures first confiscation order against landlord – Local Government Lawyer
‘The London Fire Brigade has obtained a confiscation order for the first time, against a landlord who was also fined for breaches of fire safety laws.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th March 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Regina v Wright (Robert) – WLR Daily
Regina v Wright (Robert) [2014] WLR (D) 84
‘Where an insurance company paid a defendant’s solicitors’ fees, for which he would otherwise have been liable, in connection with a false insurance claim he had made, he obtained a pecuniary advantage as a result of or in connection with his false claim, for the purposes of section 76(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Therefore, by section 76(4), those fees formed part of the defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct for the purposes of any confiscation order made under the 2002 Act.’
WLR Daily, 19th February 2014
Private Prosecutions: The foundations are laid – Six Pump Court
‘The headline in The Guardian on Wednesday 29th January 2014 (“Metropolitan Police accused of acting on behalf of big business”) would undoubtedly have caused a stir amongst private prosecutors, public prosecutors, the police, the Home Office and others interested in the issue of commercial organisations seeking redress in the criminal courts in relation to crimes committed against them. The story, based upon observations made by the Lord Chief Justice in a recent Court of Appeal case, queried the efficacy of private prosecutions brought in such circumstances and – quoting labour MP Tom Watson and Jenny Jones, a London assembly member for the Green party – suggested that they represented the “…creeping privatisation of policing…”. The former spoke of “…two tier-policing where corporate interests can buy the time of the police…” whilst the latter complained, “I hate the thought that if you are rich you can buy more justice than if you are poor…”. And yet at a time when funding for public bodies – and in particular prosecuting authorities – is under such severe strain, it is inevitable that there will be a growing demand for the private sector to operate in areas that were once solely or mainly inhabited by the state. Private prosecutions are here to stay – that much is clear from the case concerned. But are the criticisms levelled against them fair? And what is the real impact of the case on private prosecutions, confiscation and compensation and the very real problem of fraud on commerce? ‘
Six Pump Court, 5th February 2014
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
A Practical Guide To POCA & Unused Material: A Defence Perspective – Six Pump Court
‘It is easy to forget or overlook the fact that the Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996 applies equally to confiscation proceedings as it does to the substantive criminal proceedings that have resulted in the defendant being convicted in the first place (something that prosecutors do themselves on a regular basis and only appreciate its significance when the contents of their own website are brought to their attention, see “Chapter 21: Disclosure of Unused Material Created in the Course of Financial Investigations”).’
Full story (Word)
Six Pump Court, 29th January 2014
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
Regina v Padda – WLR Daily
Regina v Padda [2013] EWCA Crim 2330; [2013] WLR (D) 496
‘Section 22(4)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 preserved an obligation on the court and a discretion to make a confiscation order which was just and in so doing it could take into account all relevant circumstances and had to take into account the legislative policy in favour of maximising the recovery of the proceeds of crime, even from legitimately acquired assets.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Confiscation orders take only 26p in every £100 from criminals, NAO finds – The Guardian
‘Confiscation orders designed to ensure crime does not pay provide neither value for money nor a credible deterrent as perpetrators keep all but 26p in every £100 generated by the criminal economy, according to a damning report.’
The Guardian, 17th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Jurors who search web during cases could be jailed under new proposals – The Guardian
‘Jurors should face up to two years in prison if they search the internet for information about cases beyond what is revealed in court, the Law Commission has recommended.’
The Guardian, 9th December 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Fields and others – WLR Daily
Regina v Fields and others [2013] EWCA Crim 2042; [2013] WLR (D) 440
“In a joint benefit case, where each defendant was found to have obtained the joint benefit, he was not required by a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to disgorge benefit he had not obtained and a confiscation order made in the amount matching the correctly assessed benefit, was not disproportionate.”
WLR Daily, 14th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bomb detector conman James McCormick loses appeal bid – BBC News
“A UK businessman who sold fake bomb detectors around the world has lost a challenge against his 10-year sentence.”
BBC News, 12th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
UK drug baron Curtis Warren ordered to pay £198m or face further 10 years in jail – The Independent
“Curtis Warren, one of Britain’s most notorious drug smugglers, has been ordered to pay £198 million proceeds of his global empire or remain in prison for another 10 years.”
The Independent, 5th November 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Szepietowski (Nee Seery) (Appellant) v The National Crime Agency (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 23rd October 2013
Landlord handed £75K confiscation order after admitting planning breaches – Local Government Lawyer
“A landlord who illegally split two houses into flats has been ordered to pay a London council £75,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act.”
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd October 2013
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Regina v Smith (Kim) – WLR Daily
Regina v Smith (Kim): [2013] EWCA Crim 502; [2013] WLR (D) 398
“In proceedings for a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the fact that an offender would not be able to recover a ‘tainted gift’ from the donee did not mean that the full value of that gift should not be counted towards the recoverable amount pursuant to section 9(1)(b) of the 2002 Act.”
WLR Daily, 8th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
POSHFA! – NearlyLegal
“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).”
NearlyLegal, 14th October 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
