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 his services.
Held: The value of the contract was not realisable property within the section. It was a chose in action, but it was of the essence of the contract that the consideration was in respect of services which could only be provided in person by the defendant. The appeal succeeded.
Judges:
The Hon Mr Justice Lightman
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2739 (Admin), Times 06-Dec-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 83(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – O’Donoghue, Re Criminal Justice Act 1988 Admn 10-Feb-2004
In its definition of realisable property, section 74(1) does not confine it to property held when the confiscation order was made. . .
Cited – Re Walbrook and Glasgow 1994
It is for the appellant to show, on balance of probability, that the amount that might be realised in respect of property was less than the value of the proceeds of crime. . .
Cited – In Re Glatt Admn 2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.219923
