The defendant had been convicted of supplying cannabis resin. He received a payment 2,500 and appealed a confiscation order for that amount, saying that the profit was much less.
Held: In section 2(1)(a) the phrase ‘any payments’ had a wide interpretation and was not restricted to the net profits of trafficking. It can include any payment, and even one made in kind.
Citations:
[1989] 1 WLR 765
Statutes:
Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 1 2(1)(a) 4(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.267676