The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies in which she claimed a 50% interest.
Held: Despite the finding that she had some awareness of her husband’s activities, the claimant was entitled to keep her assets. The claimant’s interest in the property was established before any agreement to discharge the mortgage from criminal proceeds.
May LJ, Arden LJ, Wall LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 645, Times 11-Jul-2008, [2008] NPC 63, [2009] QB 348, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep FC 509, [2008] 2 FLR 1672, [2008] WTLR 1605, [2008] Fam Law 847, [2009] 2 WLR 471
Bailii
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Buckman CACD 3-Oct-1996
When considering a confiscation order which would affect the wife of the accused, and where property is held in joint names, the court should start with the prima facie position as to where the beneficial interests lay and then go on to find whether . .
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A CA 22-Jul-2002
The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Cited – Ginwalla, Regina v CACD 8-Dec-2005
. .
Cited – Stack v Dowden HL 25-Apr-2007
The parties had cohabited for a long time, in a home bought by Ms Dowden. After the breakdown of the relationship, Mr Stack claimed an equal interest in the second family home, which they had bought in joint names. The House was asked whether, when . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards CA 27-Jun-2006
The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the . .
Cited – Tinsley v Milligan HL 28-Jun-1993
Two women parties used funds generated by a joint business venture to buy a house in which they lived together. It was vested in the sole name of the plaintiff but on the understanding that they were joint beneficial owners. The purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.268828
