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.
Ch D (NI) (Simpson J)
21 February 2020
The court granted a possession order in relation to a property which had been paid for using money derived from unlawful conduct. The order did not breach the defendants’ rights under ECHR art.8, art.14 or Protocol 1 art.1. However, it was appropriate to stay the enforcement of the order for a period of six months so that the defendants’ children could remain in the property whilst taking important exams.
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Davis LJ, Simon LJ)
5 February 2020
In refusing to discharge an unexplained wealth order made against a non-EEA national, the Court of Appeal examined the statutory test for identifying a “politically exposed person” within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.362B(4)(a) and confirmed that a broad approach was to be taken to assessing whether an entity was a “state-owned enterprise” for the purposes of Directive 2015/849 art.3(9)(g). It confirmed that neither the privilege against self-incrimination nor spousal privilege applied to the unexplained wealth order procedure.
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.
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, William Davis J)
3 October 2019
A local authority had not acted ultra vires when conducting a trading standards investigation into energy brokers suspected of involvement in mis-selling. It had power to do so under the Localism Act 2011 s.1 and/or the Local Government Act 1972 s.101 and s.111. It did not have to satisfy the expediency test in s.222(1) of the 1972 Act since that test only applied to decisions to prosecute or appear in legal proceedings, and did not encompass investigations or court applications for investigatory purposes.
CA (Civ Div) (Patten LJ, Hamblen LJ, Holroyde LJ)
9 April 2019
Where a company had a proprietary claim over proceeds of fraud because they had been obtained through the unlawful use of its property by its directors, it was entitled to assert its claim in priority to a confiscation order obtained by the CPS.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, William Davis J, Judge Potter)
26 March 2019
The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014 were to be read purposively so as to give effect to Framework Decision 2006/783 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders. The Regulations could be applied to confiscation orders made before their coming into effect unless it would cause real unfairness to do so. Confiscation orders could extend to property which did not directly represent the proceeds of crime where the defendant had benefited from general criminal conduct.
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Goose J, Judge Mark Brown)
26 October 2018
A judge had been entitled to increase the amount of confiscation orders pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.22 after the Crown had discovered a further realisable asset, namely a property. The defendant’s case that a third party had an interest in the property was incredible and the judge had not erred in questioning the defendant and third party before reaching that conclusion.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Goss J, Judge Tayton QC)
24 April 2018
Where the prosecution had applied under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.22 to recalculate the available amount under a confiscation order and it was accepted that the benefit figure fell to be calculated in accordance with R. v Waya (Terry)  UKSC 51, a judge should not have proceeded as if Waya had not been decided. The sum of a confiscation order was therefore reduced from £575,000 to £198,000.
QBD (Kerr J)
22 March 2018
The Serious Fraud Office was entitled to a civil recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of £4.4 million held in a UK bank account representing the proceeds of sale of the defendant’s shares in a Canadian company which had provided corrupt inducements to foreign officials. The defendant had acquired the shares at a nominal price as part of the company’s corrupt arrangements to induce Chadian officials, including her husband, to procure the grant of oil production rights in Chad.