In attempting to prove that property represented the proceeds of crime, two paths were open to the prosecution. It could do so either by evidence that it derived from conduct of a specific kind or kinds and that conduct of that kind or those kinds was unlawful or by establishing that the circumstances in which the property was handled, gave rise to an irresistible inference that it could only be derived from crime: ‘there are two ways in which the Crown can prove the property derives from crime, a) by showing that it derives from conduct of a specific kind or kinds and that conduct of that kind or kinds is unlawful, or b) by evidence of the circumstances in which the property is handled which are such as to give rise to the irresistible inference that it can only be derived from crime’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 1354, Times 01-Sep-2008, [2009] 1 WLR 980, [2008] 2 Cr App R 36, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 554, [2008] 4 All ER 582
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Fletcher v Leicestershire Constabulary Admn 1-Nov-2013
The claimant had been called upon to repair an unoccupied flat damaged by fire. He found a metal box containing andpound;18,000 in cash. He took it to the police. He now resisted their assertion that this represented the proceeds of crime and should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.270457