The defendant appealed against a confiscation order. He had used a company to defraud suppliers on the continent of substantial sums. He said that his involvement in the conspiracy was only toward the later end and that he had received no benefit in fact.
Held: The court may often be entitled to make robust inferences if convicted defendants remain unhelpful as to which of them obtained what benefit as defined by the Act. The section is not to be construed so that a person may be held to have obtained property or derived a pecuniary advantage when a proper view of the evidence demonstrates that he has not in fact done so. The proper finding of fact on the evidence was that the appellant had obtained nothing from his participation in this conspiracy. The order was quashed.
May LJ said od section 71A: ‘The section is not to be construed so that a person may be held to have obtained property or derived a pecuniary advantage when a proper view of the evidence demonstrates that he has not in fact done so.’
Judges:
Lord Justice May Mr Justice Roderick Evans And His Honour Judge Jeremy Roberts Q.C.
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Crim 2940, Times 07-Nov-2003, [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 70
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v McKechnie CACD 2002
Four appellants conspired to defraud banks and others. The prosecution alleged a sophisticated and well organised conspiracy involving the appellants and others. Mail was redirected to addresses to which the conspirators had access. Credit cards so . .
Cited – Clifford R Norris, Re; In the Matter of an Application By Teresa W Norris CA 27-Jan-2000
After a drugs trial, the commissioners sought a confiscation order against the defendant’s assets. The defendant’s wife argued that the house was in reality hers. The trial judge found against her. In later proceedings enforce the order, the wife . .
Cited – Regina v Patel CACD 2000
The defendent pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtain property by deception. He admitted receiving a total of andpound;51,920.
Held: This amount represented his benefit from his relevant criminal conduct for the purpose of the Act. That he had . .
Cited – Abbas Kassimali Gokal v Serious Fraud Office CA 16-Mar-2001
The defendant was convicted of an offence to which section 15 of the Theft Act did not apply. It involved a deception of the auditors of BCCI in concealing a number of substantial loans made to a group of companies run by the defendant. Buxton J had . .
Cited by:
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Ahmad, Regina v SC 18-Jun-2014
The court considered the proper approach for the court to adopt, and the proper orders for the court to make, in confiscation proceedings where a number of criminals (some of whom may not be before the court) had between them acquired property or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187601