Authorities in South Africa sought assistance in recovering what they said were assets acquired in England and Scotland with the proceeds of crime in South Africa, and in particular a restraint order, an assets declaration and other investigative assistance. The Court of Appeal had restricted the ambit of the order to exclude Scotland.
Held: The decision gave the words of the Order their natural meaning and there was no reason to depart from it. Whether or not the location of ‘property’ to which a provision of POCA refers is subject to a territorial restriction depends upon the context. The appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2009] 2 All ER 223, [2009] 2 Cr App Rep 2, [2009] UKHL 17, [2009] 1 WLR 718
Links:
Statutes:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (SI 2005/3181)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – King v The Serious Fraud Office CACD 18-Mar-2008
Restraint and Disclosure orders had been made on without notice applications at the request of South Africa. The applicant appealed a refusal of their discharge.
Held: Such orders did not apply to the applicant’s assets in Scotland. The orders . .
Cited by:
Cited – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.322753