The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not been given appropriate opportunity to become involved in the earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal failed. The claimant had been given opportunity to make his case. As to whether a restraint order or a management receivership order may be made over property on the ground the court said that it is ‘realisable property’ even in advance of a confiscation order, simply on the basis that there is a good arguable case that the property in question is realisable property: ‘once a confiscation order has been made against a defendant in respect of the value of identified realisable property, it is possible to speak of such property as being realisable property (as it has been adjudicated to be as between the RCPO and the defendant) even though it is still open for third parties to vindicate their own interests in such property by proving that it is not realisable property or that the defendant’s interest in it is less than total. And . . for either or both of those reasons, on the facts of this case, there was undoubtedly jurisdiction . . to make a management receivership order.’
It was not possible to say that the claimant’s interests would not be protected by the receivership, save as to the issue of costs which remained undecided, though a special term as to the costs might be available.
Waller LJ, Rix LJ, Wilson LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 285, [2010] STC 1190, [2010] STI 797, [2010] CP Rep 31, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 405
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(8)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Norris, Application by Norris HL 28-Jun-2001
The applicant’s husband had been made the subject of a drugs confiscation order. Part of this was an order against the house. She had failed in asserting that the house was hers. Her appeal to a civil court had been disallowed as an abuse. It was . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Compton, Comptons of Brighton Limited, Coyne, Compton CA 27-Nov-2002
Appeal against refusal of restraint order.
Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: ‘All that I . .
Cited – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Taxes Management
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.403354