‘A husband who swindled his brother out of a share of a £1.5m inheritance after his parents died has been jailed for four years and four months.’
The Guardian, 24th October 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A deaf girl from Pakistan kept as a slave for nine years by a millionaire couple from Salford is to receive £100,000 in compensation.’
BBC News, 15th October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Three men who stole over 250 laptops and caused damage worth £200,000 at schools across Essex and Suffolk have been ordered to pay back just £1 each.’
BBC News, 23rd September 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A “retired” high-profile criminal has lost a high court battle over how much he has to pay back from his days of crime.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Ali (Salah) [2014] EWCA Crim 1658; [2014] WLR (D) 366
‘It was permissible for the statutory assumptions in section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be applied in a case where a defendant was either voluntarily or involuntarily absent through illness.’
WLR Daily, 31st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Rogers (Bradley) and others [2014] EWCA Crim 1680; [2014] WLR (D) 362
‘Both the provisions relating to money laundering contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and earlier authority provided jurisdiction in the English courts to cover an allegation of converting criminal property obtained by fraud in the United Kingdom by a person living and working in Spain who permitted the money to be received into his Spanish bank account and then withdrawn from it.’
WLR Daily, 1st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264
‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
Regina v Bina [2014] WLR (D) 251
‘There was no limitation by which the offence of assisting unlawful immigration, contrary to section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, was inapplicable in relation to asylum seekers. Further, section 25(3) of that Act was permissive only, so that a matter of foreign law might be proved by methods such as expert evidence or admission as well as by a government-issued certificate as set out in section 25(3).’
WLR Daily, 11th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Defendant was convicted of 8 counts of carrying on a consumer credit business without a licence (Section 39 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) ) (“illegal money lending”) and was sent to prison. Birmingham City Council whose team has vast experience in and has conduct of most prosecutions in this area of work applied under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) to confiscate the Defendant’s property and in particular a house he had purchased with the proceeds of his business. The case was not a “lifestyle” case.’
Full story (Word)
Six Pump Court, 12th May 2014
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘The government wants to do more to recover criminal assets. Joshua Rozenberg asks why – till now, at least – it has proved so difficult to deprive villains of their loot.’
BBC Law in Action, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘John Darwin, who faked his own death in a canoeing accident, has been ordered to pay a £40,000 lump sum to the authorities after two of his pensions matured.’
The Guardian, 29th May 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Not Albert Square, but it could be. The Crown Prosecution Service suspect two individuals of a massive duty/VAT fraud in their cash and carry businesses. The CPS go to the Crown Court (in the absence of the individuals) and get an order to appoint a receiver (i.e. a paid manager) to run the affairs of companies (Eastenders) in which the individuals are involved, as well as a restraint order against the individuals. Both receivership and restraint orders are set aside some months later by the Court of Appeal, on the basis that the HMRC investigator’s statements were largely “broad and unsupported assertions”. Problem: by then the receiver had run up £772,547 in fees.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th May 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 8th May 2014
‘Two women who were jailed after burying a man in a garden and claiming his benefits have been ordered to repay almost £90,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act.’
BBC News, 28th April 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v B [2014] UKSC 23; [2014] WLR (D) 151
‘A person who had been extradited to the United Kingdom for trial on a criminal charge, and who prior to his extradition had been guilty of contempt of court by disobeying a court order, could be punished for the contempt notwithstanding that it was not the basis of his extradition.’
WLR Daily, 2nd April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
R v O’Brien (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 23 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 2nd April 2014
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
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
Regina v Pace and another [2014] EWCA Crim 186; [2014] WLR (D) 81
‘The mens rea of the offence of attempting to conceal, disguise or convert criminal property, contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, required that the defendant knew that the property was criminal property. Mere suspicion of that fact was insufficient.’
WLR Daily, 18th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024