The appellant appealed by case stated against an order for forfeiture of andpound;40,000 cash seized by the respondent on her entering the UK. The Crown Court, on appeal from the Magistrates Court, had found that that cash ‘may well have been’ the proceeds of money laundering or of income tax evasion, but it made no positive finding, even on the balance of probabilities. The question was asked by case stated whether, for the purposes of forfeiture proceedings, it was necessary ‘to show that the property seized was obtained through conduct of one of a number of kinds each of which would have been unlawful conduct or is it sufficient for the officer to point to criminal conduct of an unspecified kind’.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Muneka was not authority for the general proposition for which it had been relied on, and specifically that the requirements of sections 241 and 242 must be the same for all the provisions of Part 5, whether under Chapter 2 or Chapter 3.
It would be wrong to create two systems for interpreting the same provision.
Judges:
Thomas LJ, Nicola Davies J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 461 (Admin), [2011] Lloyds Rep FC 329
Links:
Statutes:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 294
Citing:
Explained – Muneka v Customs and Excise Admn 2-Feb-2005
The Albanian claimant was found at Heathrow Airport with a ticket to Tirana and with over andpound;20,000 in cash in his baggage. The district judge held that the cash had been obtained through unlawful conduct and that it was therefore recoverable . .
Cited by:
Cited – Wiese v The UK Border Agency Admn 29-Jun-2012
The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430522