Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another: QBD 8 Feb 2007

The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of probabilities’, that the matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct occurred. The court had a discretion under 266(3) not to make an order where it would be unfair or interfere with a human right. ‘any significant asset of Mr Olupitan was obtained by or was the proceeds of his dishonest acquisitive criminal conduct and is recoverable property.’

Langley J
[2007] EWHC 162 (QB)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Part 5
England and Wales
CitedDirector of Assets Recovery Agency and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Green and others Admn 16-Dec-2005
The defendant challenged the making of civil orders for recovery of what were alleged to be the proceeds of crime. They complained that no specific offence had been made out. The court was asked, as a preliminary issue: ‘Whether a claim for civil . .
See AlsoAssets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another 2006
The Respondents applied to strike out the claim under the Act on grounds including that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and was an abuse of process.
Held: The application was refused. . .
CitedAttorney-General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung PC 1987
Textile export quotas (a permission to export textiles) which were surplus to the exporter’s requirements, which could be bought and sold under the apprpriate Hong Kong legislation, may be ‘property’ for the purposes of the law of theft. . .
CitedRegina v Williams (Jacqueline) and Crick CACD 30-Jul-1993
The defendant was accused of having obtained by deception a mortgage advance, the amount having been paid by electronic transfer.
Held: The sum of money represented by a figure in a bank account was not fully property for the purposes of the . .
CitedRegina v Preddy; Regina v Slade; Regina v Dhillon (Conjoined Appeals) HL 10-Jul-1996
The appellants were said to have made false mortgage applications. They appealed convictions for dishonestly obtaining property by deception.
Held: A chose in action created by an electronic bank transfer was not property which was capable of . .
CitedRegina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
CitedRegina v L,G,Q and M 2004
. .
CitedRegina v El-Kurd CACD 2001
The defendants had been charged with four conspiracies, each of which was indicted as a conspiracy to commit offences under the 1994 Act on the one hand and under the 1988 Act on the other. The crown accepted that for a conviction for the laundering . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.248399