If on an application made in respect of a confiscation order by the defendant the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of the amount remaining to be recovered under the order, the court shall issue a certificate to that effect giving the court’s reasons. The realisable property for this purpose is what the High Court determines to be the realisable property: the High Court is not constrained by what the Crown Court has held when making the confiscation order to be the realisable property.
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 2495 (Admin)
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 83(1)
Cited by:
Cited – In the Matter of Christopher Adams, In the Matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Admn 26-Nov-2004
The defendant appealed a refusal of a certificate of inadequacy to an amount due under a confiscation order, saying that the court had wrongly allowed for the value of a consultancy agreement under which he was entitled to receive an annual fee for . .
See Also – Glatt, Regina v CACD 17-Mar-2006
. .
See Also – Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Chaja Glatt and others Admn 2008
The claimant, the former court appointed receiver of the defendant’s estate under a criminal confiscation order under the 1988 Act made on the defendant’s conviction for money laundering sought to claim against the prisoner’s assets hed by the . .
See Also – Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Glatt and Glatt and Glatt CA 13-Mar-2009
The court considered the recovery of expenses by a receiver appointed to administer assets of money launderer. The receiver sought to exercise a lien over assets held for the prisoner by the prison to recover the costs of the receivership after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.220268
