1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The company provided trading services in financial futures. They became concerned as to the integrity of their client, and its relationship with shareholders and other companies where parties came to be arrested for fraud in the US. They sought a declaration that funds they had received were not the proceeds of criminal conduct. Held: The … Continue reading Amalgamated Metal Trading Ltd v City of London Police Financial Investigation Unit and others: ComC 3 Apr 2003
Statutory provisions which reversed the burden of proof in cases involving drug smuggling and other repeat offenders, allowing confiscation orders to be made were not necessarily in contravention of the article 6 right. However the question of whether the statutory provision infringed the right to a fair trial was for each particular case which came … Continue reading Regina v Benjafield, Regina v Leal, Regina v Rezvi, Regina v Milford: HL 24 Jan 2002
The defendant was convicted of an offence to which section 15 of the Theft Act did not apply. It involved a deception of the auditors of BCCI in concealing a number of substantial loans made to a group of companies run by the defendant. Buxton J had considered that Rees was confined to its own … Continue reading Abbas Kassimali Gokal v Serious Fraud Office: CA 16 Mar 2001
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 court had made each of 16 defendants liable for the full … Continue reading May, Regina v: HL 14 May 2008
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later convicted of having misled the first lender in his application. The judge … Continue reading Waya, Regina v: SC 14 Nov 2012
The appellant had pleaded guilty to a number of offences of dishonesty and asked for a number of others to be taken into consideration. One of the offences to which he had pleaded guilty and one of those which he had asked to be taken into . .
The appellant had pleaded guilty to three offences of conspiracy to defraud by inflating invoices for goods supplied. The first of those offences took place at a time between January 1995 and October 2006; the second between January 1995 and June . .
The appellant challenged a confiscation order made on his conviction of VAT fraud. It was argued that one could not be made unless a proper notice had been given, and none of the offences occurred before 1995. On the assumption that section 1 of the . .
The defendant was convicted of having in his possession goods bearing a a sign identical to or likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark. A confiscation order was made, which he now appealed.
Held: Under section 71, a person benefitted . .
The defendant appealed his convictions for robbery. He had been subject to a dock identification, and he complained that the prosecution had failed in its duties of disclosure. Held: The combination of several failings meant that the defendant had not received a fair trial, and the appeal was allowed. The practice of dock identification was … Continue reading Holland v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Devolution): PC 11 May 2005
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders on the basis that in various ways, the Crown had failed to comply with procedural requirements. Held: The courts must remember the importance of such procedures in the fight against crime, and must not allow procedural or technical failures to defeat that purpose. Courts should rather look to see … Continue reading Sekhon, etc v Regina: CACD 16 Dec 2002
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 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). Held: The defendant was unable to set off against the amount ordered to be paid any sum which … Continue reading Department for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael): CACD 3 Mar 2005
The parties had lived together in a house owned in the defendant’s name and in which she claimed an interest. The claimant’s solicitors notified NCIS that they thought the defendant had acted illegally in setting off against his VAT liability the VAT on works carried out on his own property. Because of the delay which … Continue reading Bowman v Fels (Bar Council and Others intervening): CA 8 Mar 2005
Recall of a restraint order granted on the Petition at the instance of Her Majesty’s Advocate in terms of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 s. 28 whereby the first Noter was interdicted from dealing with its realisable property including specifically the dwelling house Citations:  ScotCS CSOH – 38 Links: Bailii Statutes: Proceeds … Continue reading Trustunion Llc and Another, Re Recall of A Restraint Order: SCS 16 Apr 2015
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement. Held: In an action for breach of statutory duty the court can in appropriate circumstances make a restitutionary award, that … Continue reading Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others: ChD 19 Oct 2007
An application for a confiscation order following a drugs trial, was subject to the requirement of a presumption of innocence. The assumptions required of a court under the Act as to the source of assets acquired by the convicted person violated that presumption of innocence. The section required nothing of the Crown to even suggest … Continue reading Mcintosh v HM Advocate: HCJ 31 Oct 2000
Each applicant had been subject to confiscation in criminal proceedings relating to drugs offences. They complained that the legislation had reversed the burden of proof. Held: ‘it was not incompatible with the notion of a fair hearing in criminal proceedings to place the onus on each applicant to give a credible account of his current … Continue reading Grayson and Barnham v The United Kingdom: ECHR 23 Sep 2008
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The bank owed a duty … Continue reading HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc: HL 21 Jun 2006
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were not to be reduced by deducting the full net value of … Continue reading Parry v Cleaver: HL 5 Feb 1969
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious faiths. Held: A distinction was to be made between domestic cases involving actions within … Continue reading Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 17 Jun 2004
The defendant had been convicted of an offence of supplying drugs whilst on licence for a similar offence. The court considered a request for an order under the 2002 Act. Lord Boyd of Duncansby  ScotHC HCJ – 112 Bailii Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 76, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b), Proceeds of Crime … Continue reading HM Advocate v McAllister: HCJ 7 Oct 2014
The Revenue appealed against discharge of a restraint order. The discharge had been on the basis that some of the offences under investigation (perpetrating a fraud on the revenue) took place before the 2002 Act came into effect. Held: The appeal succeeded. Under the former law, criminal proceedings had to be about to be begun … Continue reading In re Hill and Others (Restraint Order): CACD 20 Dec 2005
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and proportionate. Held: The present procedure does not involve the criminal courts and the absence of any criminal … Continue reading Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others: CA 11 Apr 2003
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there were no sufficient ground for the request for and issue of the warrants. The investigation had been … Continue reading Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others: Admn 13 Nov 2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) if he accompanied her to Switzerland. She said that the failure to … Continue reading Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: QBD 29 Oct 2008
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver ‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as management receiver of … Continue reading Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another: SC 8 May 2014
The appellants complained that the recovery order made against them in part under the transitional provisions were unlawful. They had claimed benefits as single people but were married to each other and for a house not occupied. The difficulty was . .
(From High Court of Justiciary (Scotland)) The defendant had been convicted of drug trafficking. He complained that the following confiscation order had infringed his human rights being based an assumption of guilt and which was incompatible with . .
Police had seized substantial sums of cash from the first defendant acting under the 2004 Act. The claimant said that andpound;250,00 was his and sought its return. The Commissioner argued that the current proceedings were an abuse of process.
The defendant appealed a conviction of possession of 66 grams of cannabis with intent to supply. Also found were a large number of small bags and pounds 7,000 in cash. The defendant said the cannabis was for his personal use, and the equipment had . .