Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency: CA 18 May 2011

The court was asked ‘Does a court in England and Wales have the power under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to make a recovery order in favour of the trustee for civil recovery in respect of recoverable property outside this jurisdiction, whether moveable or immoveable?’
Hooper LJ justifified the extraterritorial effect, saying that if the appellants were correct: ‘a court in this jurisdiction would be unable to make a civil recovery order in respect of land or other property in Spain bought with the proceeds of crimes committed here by a person resident here. Unable to obtain a civil recovery order, the enforcement authority could not take any steps here to require the person to hand over the property in Spain. Nor (so it appears) could the United Kingdom take enforcement action in Spain pursuant to [the Strasbourg Convention] (to which I return below) because there would be no order of the court to enforce: see paragraph 81 below.’
Maurice Kay VP, Hooper, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 578, [2011] Lloyds Rep FC 387, [2011] 3 Costs LO 292, [2011] CP Rep 36, [2011] 4 All ER 470, [2011] 1 WLR 2817
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, 1990 Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoSerious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and Others Admn 30-Jul-2009
The respondents sought to have set aside a world wide asset freezing and associated orders obtained by SOCA against them. They said that the Court had no jurisdiction over them, and that the Agency was guilty of wilful non-disclosure. They first . .
See AlsoSerious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and Others CA 29-Jul-2010
The court heard appeals against disclosure orders made under the 2002 Act. The appellants argued that neither the offence, nor the assets nor the appellants themselves were within the jurisdiction. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromPerry 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.439823