Regina v May; Regina v Bravard; Regina v Stapleton: CACD 28 Jan 2005

The defendants had created limited companies for the sole purpose of making fraudulent reclaims of VAT. They appealed confiscation orders which attributed to each of them the whole sum received by the companies, rather than a proportionate part.
Held: When looking at what property was owned by a defendant when considering a confiscation order and looking at property over which he only had joint control, there was no need for the court to make an apportionment. The corporate veil was correctly pierced. It was the obtaining or retention of property which mattered under the section, bit whther he did so merely as collector or distributor. It was as if they had paid the sum into a joint bank account. However the section required the order to be made with respect to provable assets not those which a court might think were hidden, and the orders were adjusted accordingly.


Keene, Hodge LJJ, Jones QC


Times 15-Feb-2005


Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(4)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDepartment for Works and Pensions v Richards; Regina v Richards (Michael) CACD 3-Mar-2005
After conviction for benefits fraud, the defendant appealed a confiscation order, saying that had he made appropriate claims for state benefirs under other heads, the loss to the state would have been much less (andpound;3000 not andpound;19,000). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223222