Source: https://jimmeyer.co.uk/case-law/confiscation-orders/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 01:28:04
Document Index: 339908972

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'art.4', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

CONFISCATION ORDERS — Page 2
[2018] EWCA Civ 2543
CA (Civ Div) (Patten LJ, Newey LJ, Coulson LJ)
[2018] EWHC 2843 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Goose J)
An order for committal for breach of a confiscation order was quashed where the magistrates had failed to apply the correct statutory test under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.82(4). They had not stated that they were satisfied as to the claimants’ wilful refusal or culpable neglect in defaulting on payment, nor that they had considered and ruled out all alternative options of enforcing payment. Instead, they had focused on the claimants’ delay in complying with the order and on the fact that sufficient assets were available to satisfy it.
[2018] UKSC 23
SC (Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Reed JSC, Lord Hughes JSC, Lady Black JSC)
The Supreme Court interpreted the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Commencement No. 5, Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Order 2003 art.4(1). It had not been Parliament’s intention that, if any of the offences on which a defendant had been committed pre-dated 24 March 2003, none of the offences, not even those committed after that date, could be treated as candidates for confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.156.
[2018] EWCA Crim 1057
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Judge Rees)
A confiscation order, made in relation to an offender who had pleaded guilty to the fraudulent evasion of duty and money laundering following his involvement in the illegal importation of hand rolling tobacco and cigarettes, was quashed as the judge had erred in his assessment of the offender’s benefit and available assets. Specifically, the judge had erred in concluding that the offender was not personally liable to pay the evaded duty.
[2018] EWCA Crim 944
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Goose J, Judge Tayton QC)
Although the default term of imprisonment imposed in respect of a confiscation order did not stand alone and was closely linked to the confiscation order, they were distinct orders and the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear a prosecution appeal against the default term.
[2018] EWCA Crim 1061
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Julian Knowles J, Judge Lodder QC)
A confiscation order for £2.34 million, representing the benefit from an offender’s part in a large-scale drugs conspiracy, was proportionate. The offender had failed to demonstrate that the available amount was less than his benefit from criminal conduct. His argument that the judge should have considered how much of the proceeds he had retained when calculating the available amount was rejected, as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was directed to the proceeds of crime, not the net profits.