The appellant had bought five consignments of drugs from a Hong Kong supplier and sold them on to an African buyer, from whom in each case he had received the purchase price which he had paid on to the supplier. He appealed confiscation orders in the amount of the sums received saying that these sums had been paid on.
Held: The appeal failed. A drug trafficking middleman is liable to a confiscation order on the receipts not just on profits. The proceeds of sale were not profit made in the sale but the sale price. It was clear that where there is a chain of contracts each purchase price is a payment. This result could not be avoided by treating the intermediary as a postman, and those acting as a conduit should not be treated differently.
Citations:
Times 04-Jun-1993, (1993) 98 Cr App R 100
Statutes:
Drug Trafficking Offenders Act 1986
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 – Regina v Green HL 14-May-2008
The appellant had been found to have received criminal proceeds along with another. He appealed against an order making him liable for the full amount.
Held: The appeal failed. The defendant’s argument did not face the finding that he had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88027
