The defendant had been made subject to a criminal restraint order so as to preserve his assets pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. He complained that the order affected property which was not his.
Held: Such an order could cover property which he had obtained for the benefit of somebody else. What was required was the defendant’s non-trivial contribution getting of the property. There was no additional requirement that the defendant have any control over the property. The Act acknowledged expressly the possibility of the same sum being recovered on more than one occasion by means of orders against multiple defendants.
The word ‘obtain’ contemplated that the relevant defendant had been ‘instrumental in getting the property out of the crime’ so that his acts ‘must have been a cause of that being done’.
Laws LJ said: ‘It is in my judgment plain that the essence of what is meant by ‘benefit’ in section 71(4) is given by the verb ‘obtain’; and whether in any given case a person has obtained any particular property must involve issues of fact.’
Laws, Longmore, Lloyd LJJ
 EWCA Civ 746, Times 12-Jul-2005,  1 WLR 182
England and Wales
Appeal from – Crown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
Cited – Serious Fraud Office v A CACD 2-Aug-2007
The Director said the Judge had been wrong to discharge on grounds of want of disclosure a restraint order previously made ex parte under the Proceeds of Crime Act at the request of a foreign investigator.
‘The proper approach is to consider . .
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Cited – Basso and Another v Regina CACD 19-May-2010
The defendants had been convicted of offences of failing to comply with planning enforcement notices (and fined andpound;10.00), and subsequently made subject to criminal confiscation orders. The orders had been made in respect of the gross income . .
Cited – Mills and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 25-Jul-2014
The claimants faced criminal charges involving allegations of fraud and corruption. They now challenged by judicial review a search and seizure warrant saying that it was unlawful. A restraint order had been made against them and they had complied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227925