Gabriel, Regina v: CACD 2 Feb 2006

The appellant appealed convictions for possession of criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(c) of POCA. The police found him with sums of cash which the prosecution said were the proceeds of crime. After the jury had retired, the jury asked a question whether the regular buying and selling of goods to supplement the household income without declaring it constitute a criminal offence ‘given the declarations made on application for benefit (or lack of declaration to the Inland Revenue)’. The Recorder answered that ‘both matters can constitute a criminal offence provided that there is dishonesty on the part of the person concerned’.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘It is absolutely plain to me that in relation to any confiscation proceedings that may follow upon a conviction for cheating the Revenue, that the arguments advanced by the Crown in relation to the meaning of ‘criminal property’ would hold water. With regard to the money laundering count, awkward though it may be, it seems to me that the conclusions reached by Lord Justice Gage in Gabriel carry the day and that there is a fatal flaw in Count 12.
I will conclude that incomplete disclosure of takings cannot convert legitimate takings into criminal property as defined. Count 12 will therefore be withdrawn from the jury.’

Gage LJ
[2006] EWCA Crim 229, [2007] 2 Cr App Rep 11, [2007] 1 WLR 2272, [2006] Crim LR 852
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 340(5)
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedIK, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The prosecutor appealed a finding that the proceeds of cheating the revenue were not the proceeds of crime within the 2002 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The case was different from Galbraith in that there was a clear finding of a cheat. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.248236