The defendant had had set aside an interim order for assets recovery. The director appealed against a finding by the court below that he did not have ‘a good arguable case’, justifying an interim recovery order.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On an interim order, the director had to establish a good arguable case that a criminal offence had been commited, that the goods represented the proceeds of that offence in soime way. He did not have to show that a particular person had committed a particular offence on a particular day.
Waller LJ said: ‘In this case, in considering whether a good arguable case has been established, it will be necessary to examine first whether it is arguable on the evidence that unlawful conduct of the kind asserted by the ARA has taken place i.e. mortgage fraud. Next needs to be considered whether it is arguable that the property sought to be frozen represents property originally obtained through such unlawful conduct, but not necessarily through specific examples of that conduct; and finally, if there is some evidence that property was obtained though unlawful conduct, consideration needs to be given to any untruthful explanation or a lack of explanation where opportunity has been given to provide it. An untruthful explanation or a failure to offer an explanation may add strength to the arguability of the case.’
Moore-Bick LJ said: ‘As Waller LJ has observed, neither party took issue with the conclusions reached by Sullivan J in R (Director of Assets Recovery Agency) v Green, but in my view that should not deter us from considering them with a critical eye. When deciding what the Director must prove it important to bear in mind that the right to recover property does not depend on the commission of unlawful conduct by the current holder. All that is required is that the property itself be tainted because it, or other property which it represents, was obtained by unlawful conduct. Section 304 allows property to be followed into different hands and although section 308(1) of the Act protects a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, it is not difficult to think of circumstances in which property might be recoverable from someone who is himself entirely innocent. It is important, therefore, that the Director should be required to establish clearly that the property which she seeks to recover, or other property which it represents, was indeed obtained by unlawful conduct.
In order to do that it is sufficient, in my view, for the Director to prove that a criminal offence was committed, even if it is impossible to identify precisely when or by whom or in what circumstances, and that the property was obtained by or in return for it. In my view Sullivan J. was right, therefore, to hold that in order to succeed the Director need not prove the commission of any specific criminal offence, in the sense of proving that a particular person committed a particular offence on a particular occasion. Nonetheless, I think it is necessary for her to prove that specific property was obtained by or in return for a criminal offence of an identifiable kind (robbery, theft, fraud or whatever) or, if she relies on section 242(2), by or in return for one or other of a number of offences of an identifiable kind. If, as I think, that is what the judge meant in paragraph 50 of his judgment, I respectfully agree with him.’
Judges:
Waller LJ, Wall LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 766, Times 21-Aug-2007, [2008] Lloyds Rep FC 10
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others Admn 29-Sep-2006
The respondent had objected that the appointment of an interim receiver had been based upon information obtained in the course of investigations undertaken in connection with different proceedings and allegations.
Held: The enforcement agency . .
Appeal from – Szepietowski v Assets Recovery Agency Admn 28-Nov-2006
The first respondent applied for the freezing and receiving orders in relation to two properties and chattels obtained by the first respondent under the 2002 Act to be discharged on the footing that the Agency Director has not shown that she has a . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited by:
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and others ChD 27-Feb-2009
Several of the defendants applied for assets to be excluded from an interim receiving order in order to enable them to meet legal expenses. . .
See Also – Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 19-Mar-2009
The applicant defendants sought to have excluded from the effect of restrictions on their dealing with property, property which was held under trusts.
Held: The applications were rejected. There were well established rules allowing trustees . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others (No 2) ChD 1-Jul-2009
The Agency asked to have set aside four orders allowing the defendant to have excluded from his assets subject to an interim receiving order to allow payment of his legal expenses.
Held: There was no rule that assets once excluded from an . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
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 . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 21-Jul-2011
The claimant owned properties subject to charges in favour of a bank. The Agency alleged that the properties represented the proceeds of crime. The agency had settled its claim by taking a second charge over one property. When that was sold, only . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258362
