H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another: 18 Apr 2002

The court held that they were not precluded by an application made under the 1994 Act against assets of the husband from making an order in favour of the wife under the 1973 Act. The court discharged the Receiver appointed under section 29(2) DTA 1994 and dismissed an application by HM Customs and Excise for Mr A’s interest in the property and the policies to be included in the realisable property over which the Receiver had been appointed: ‘The wife’s evidence is that she had no knowledge of the husband’s criminal activities, that she never saw anything to alert her to what he was doing and that it all came as an incredible shock to her when he was arrested. Very fairly and properly Customs and Excise, both before Hooper J on 4 October 2001 (see Re A [2001] EWHC Admin 773 para [10]) and again before me, accepted that no part of the equity in either the house or the policies was acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking and that the couple had separated before the husband had started his drug trafficking activities. Indeed, says Mr Bird, the wife went so far as to assist the authorities by giving the prosecution a statement, though in the event she was not called at the trial. As Hooper J said, the wife: ‘is not only innocent of any involvement in drug trafficking, but she also lives in a house and enjoys the benefit of policies all untainted by drug trafficking.”


Munby J


[2002] EWHC 611


Drug Trafficking Act 1994


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromH M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA CA 22-Jul-2002
The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial . .
CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.234399