A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property restrained was not reduced. This was not such a case.
Judges:
David J
Citations:
Times 03-Jun-2004
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Peters CA 1988
After the defendant was arrested for drugs offences a restraint order was made to prevent dissipation of his assets. Orders were made to vary the restraint to allow payment of his sons school fees, and in family proceedings for a payment to his . .
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
Cited – In re G QBD 30-Jul-2001
. .
Cited – In Re P (Restraint Order) (Sale of Assets) CA 2-Aug-1999
An interim receiver under the Act was primarily appointed to preserve the assets of the defendant to prevent dissipation, and not to maximise them so as to realise greater sums for the purposes of any eventual confiscation order. He was answerable . .
Cited – In re W 15-Nov-1990
Where assets had been seized in criminal proceedings, the court had power to order a payment to creditors only where the value of the assets would not be reduced. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.199325
