The defendant entered a plea of guilty to smuggling cigarettes on the basis that he was neither the organiser of the importation, nor the financier, nor the end user. His only reward was the promise of a payment of pounds 10,000, of which he had received half. His only involvement was that he had facilitated the importation and freight arrangements. However the importation had given rise to a pecuniary advantage in the sum of over pounds 1.1 million reflecting the evaded duty.
Held: The defendant had obtained a benefit to that full extent: ‘It was the appellant who was responsible for the importation and storage of the goods, whatever reward he might eventually have been expecting, and, in our judgment he derived a pecuniary advantage within the meaning of the subsection upon the importation. We follow the reasoning of Lord Rodger, in Smith.’
Judges:
Pill LJ, Gray J, Sir Ian Kennedy
Citations:
[2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 32, [2004] EWCA Crim 3446
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Bakewell, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant faced allegations of evading duty on the importing of substantial quantities of cigarettes. A confiscation order was made. HMRC appealed saying it was too small a sum.
Held: ‘the liability of a smuggler who evades duty which he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237578