CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Fraser J, Judge Michael Chambers QC)
24 July 2020
A recorder had erred in principle in withholding credit for a guilty plea when imposing the maximum fine available for a failure to comply with the requirements of a planning enforcement notice. The fact that the recorder would have imposed a heavier fine if permitted was irrelevant. However, the recorder was justified in making a confiscation order in the sum of the gross rental income obtained as a result of the criminal conduct inherent in the breach of the notice requirements.
SC (NI) (Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Wilson JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC, Lord Briggs JSC, Lady Arden JSC)
1 July 2020
The Supreme Court explained the purpose and operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.160A, which concerned a defendant’s interests in property where a confiscation order was being made. There were potentially two stages to confiscation proceedings, namely the making of the order and its enforcement, and s.160A was intended to combine them into one for simple cases. However, in more complex cases, particularly where property was jointly owned, the two-stage process could still occur and third party property interests could arise for consideration at the enforcement stage.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Fraser J, Sir Nicholas Blake)
23 April 2020
A “patteggiamento”, consisting of a negotiated agreement for a penalty in criminal cases, equated to a criminal conviction under Italian law. It could also be regarded as a “conviction” for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 art.21, enabling the registration and enforcement of an Italian confiscation order pursuant to art.21(2).
QBD (Admin) (Freedman J)
6 March 2020
In a case concerning a confiscation order made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, an individual’s judicial review challenge to a finding that a French property in which he had an interest amounted to the proceeds of crime was bound to fail. The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which applied to confiscation orders made under the 1994 Act, made clear that there was no requirement for the Crown to prove that the assets against which enforcement was made had come from the particular drugs offence.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Lewis J, May J)
18 February 2020
The expansive definition of “proceeds of an offence” in the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014 reg.3(2)(c)(ii) strongly pointed to a wide application of the phrase “in relation to property” in another Member State used in reg.11(2)(a).
QBD (Admin) (Lewis J)
21 January 2020
The court made a certificate under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 s.16(2) in relation to property inherited after a confiscation order had been made in circumstances where the original offences had been committed before March 2003 and the Supreme Court had held that s.16(2) did apply to property acquired after a confiscation order had been made.
CA (Crim Div) (Irwin LJ, Warby J, Martin Spencer J)
22 November 2019
The Crown Court had been entitled to vary upwards a confiscation order after the High Court, in a claim by the defendant against his solicitors alleging that their conveyancing error had led to his conviction for breaching an enforcement notice and the confiscation order, had made an order indemnifying him against any increase in the order. The indemnity represented an “available amount” for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.22.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019
Where a confiscation order had been made against a defendant who had been convicted of offences involving the improper retention of pension contributions, it was not disproportionate to require her to pay the full amount of the benefit obtained. Although she might have received the benefit of the pension contributions in any event, it was not open to her to argue that she would or might have acquired valuable rights had she acted honestly.
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Popplewell J, Judge Marson QC)
18 July 2019
The court refused to vary a confiscation order imposed following an individual’s guilty plea to breach of an enforcement notice by illegally renting out three bedsits. The rental income had been a benefit received as a result of criminal conduct for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.76. It was not open to the applicant to argue that as he could have lawfully received a benefit from the property, that amount should be deducted from the confiscation order.
QBD (Jefford J)
15 May 2019
A private prosecutor was not entitled to payment out of central funds of his costs relating to confiscation order enforcement proceedings, as the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.17 was not intended to apply to civil proceedings in the High Court, even if the proceedings were consequential on criminal proceedings.