The defendant had admitted charges of obtaining property by deception. A confiscation hearing concluded that he had benefitted to a much greater extent than could be recoverd. Before then however both his parents had died, and he stood to inherit further sums, though grants had not been taken out. The DPP applied to vary the confiscation order to allow for the anticipated increase in his funds. He had also since settled an action against the police in which he was awarded andpound;2,500 for false imprisonment.
Held: The variation could be made. Neither asset was acquired after the confiscation order. The right to each had arisen beforehand. The definition of what was caught by such proceedings was comprehensive. His interest was ‘property’ for the purposes of the Order.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
 UKHL 9,  1 WLR 315,  NI 173
Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
Cited – Sudeley v Attorney-General HL 1897
The husband had died leaving part of his residuary estate to his widow. She then died before the estate was fully administered. Both died domiciled in England. The husband’s estate included mortgages of land in New Zealand and the House was asked . .
Cited – Regina v Tivnan CACD 6-May-1998
The Crown Court was able to increase the amount of a confiscation order after making the original order, where further assets were revealed, but not beyond assessed benefit to him of the crime. . .
Cited – Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v Livingston PC 7-Oct-1964
A testator had died domiciled in New South Wales and with real and personal property both in New South Wales and in Queensland. He left one-third of his real and personal estate to his widow absolutely. She then died intestate, also domiciled in New . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 February 2021; Ref: scu.264277