The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, alleging abuse of process by the prosecution. He had transferred land from the company just before it went into liquidation, and admitted the offence under the 1986 Act. He complained that the liquidator having recovered the land the further confiscation action was an abuse.
Held: The transfer had not been to the defendant, and therefore section 6 could not bite.
[2009] EWCA Crim 194, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep FC 314, [2009] Crim LR 452, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 81
Bailii
Insolvency Act 1986 202(1)(b), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6(6) 7(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mahmood and Another, Regina v CACD 26-Aug-2005
. .
Cited – Morgan v Regina; Bygrave v Regina CACD 20-Jun-2008
The court considered the circumstances under which it might exercise its jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process in confiscation proceedings. The circumstances where a confiscation might be oppressive are: ‘where demonstrably (i) the defendant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Hockey CACD 2007
The court may restrain confiscation proceedings as an abuse of process in circumstances where the Crown had acted contrary to an understanding that, if repayment was made, it would not seek a confiscation order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.291783
