The defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements, and cheating the public revenue by understating his profits as a market trader over a protracted period. The judge made a confiscation order equal to the amount of undeclared profit. On appeal, that element was set aside. The section referred to the pecuniary advantage obtained by the cheating. The undeclared profit was not earned as a result of the cheating, but in the normal course of trade. The pecuniary advantage was the amount of underpayment of tax, with interest accrued or investment return on that sum. Neither could the later section be used to treat properly earned sums as a pecuniary advantage.
Judges:
Mantell LJ, Rougier LJ, Grigson J
Citations:
Times 08-Aug-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1770, [2002] 1 WLR 253
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(5) 102(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Foggon CACD 14-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order, after conviction for cheating the public revenue. Funds had been diverted from his company to avoid payment of taxes.
Held: Tax which was avoided would fall under the section and be a . .
Appeal from – Regina v Dimsey HL 11-Oct-2001
The defendant provided financial services, including the provision of offshore companies for a co-defendant. They were used to secrete assets abroad. Misleading information was provided to the revenue by the applicant and others. They were charged . .
Cited – IK, Regina v CACD 8-Mar-2007
The prosecutor appealed a finding that the proceeds of cheating the revenue were not the proceeds of crime within the 2002 Act.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The case was different from Galbraith in that there was a clear finding of a cheat. The . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.136171