“Gerald Smith, a doctor-turned-financier who is serving eight years in prison for defrauding an internet business, was ordered to surrender £41 million yesterday in the largest confiscation order in British criminal proceedings.”
The Times, 14th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The setting up of a government agency to seize criminals’ wealth was ill-planned and unrealistic, an influential group of MPs has said.”
BBC News, 11th October 2007
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Britain’s worst tax fraudster is using ‘smoke and mirrors’ to avoid paying back his illegally-gained fortune, a court heard yesterday.”
The Times, 19th September 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Proving assets obtained by unlawful conduct
Director of Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and Others (No 2)
Court of Appeal
“On an application for an interim receiving order, the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency had to show that a criminal offence was committed and the property to be recovered was obtained by it or in return for it. It was not necessary to prove that a particular person committed a particular offence on a particular day.”
The Times, 21st August 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Director of Assets Recovery Agency v. Szepietowski and others
“On an application for an interim receiving order under s 246 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency had to establish a good arguable case that the property to be recovered or other property it represented had been obtained by unlawful conduct. It was sufficient to show that a criminal offence had been committed and the property had been obtained by it or in return for it. It was not necessary to prove that a particular person committed a particular offence on a particular day.”
WLR Daily, 24th July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (El-Kurd) v. Sakavickas and another; R v. Rana Singh [2007] EWCA Crim 1888
“Where a judge had misdirected a jury owing to a defect in the indictment and the misdirection went to the heart of the issue between the defendant and the Crown, the conviction would be unsafe even if the indictment could have been amended so that the facts relied on would amount to the offence charged, and even where the case against the defendant was very strong.”
WLR Daily, 26th July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has bee fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca), the UK equivalent of the FBI, has been strongly criticised by Law Lords [sic] in the Court of Appeal for its “unlawful” action in freezing payments to a company that the organisation believed may have been involved in a VAT fraud.”
The Independent, 27th May 2007
Source: www.independent.co.uk
R (UMBS Online Ltd.) v. Serious Organised Crime Agency and another
“The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was a powerful statutory body whose decisions could imperil private and business banking activity on no more than a reported suspicion of money-laundering. However it should not withhold consent to a bank to allow it to operate a customer’s account under s 335 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 without good reason. It had an obligation to keep matters under review and its refusal of a bank customer’s request to revisit the matter was unlawful.”
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024