The defendant was one of four conspirators who had between them obtained andpound;220,000 by fraud. There was no evidence before the trial judge to enable him to determine how the proceeds had been divided between the conspirators or, it seems, to decide that they had been obtained jointly. He therefore divided the sum between the four, although failing to specify the sum of benefit which he attributed to the defendant. This equal division was criticised in argument in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The division was upheld. The case clearly called for a confiscation order. It would have defeated the purpose of the legislation to allow lack of information, which only the defendant and her co-conspirators could provide, to preclude the making of an order. An equal division was the fairest solution available in the circumstances. It was irrelevant when making an order confiscating the proceeds of crime that those proceeds had already been frittered away by the defendant.
Citations:
(1995) Cr App R (S) 421
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Department for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael) CACD 3-Mar-2005
After conviction for benefits fraud, the defendant appealed a confiscation order, saying that had he made appropriate claims for state benefirs under other heads, the loss to the state would have been much less (andpound;3000 not andpound;19,000). . .
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.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223883