Mr Gale had been prosecuted twice in foreign courts on allegations of drug trafficking. Each prosecution had failed. The Agency nevertheless sought an order under the 2002 Act alleging that his property was the fruit of criminal activity.
Held: The order was granted. The court rejected Mr Gale’s case that he was ‘a genuine businessman who acquired wealth by his honest endeavours in building work, property investment and business ventures of varying kinds’. Griffiths Williams J said: ‘I am in no doubt that DG and TG engaged in unlawful conduct – in DG’s case, money laundering and drug trafficking, in TG’s case, money laundering. There is also evidence of tax evasion in four jurisdictions. They have acquired capital and various assets as a direct consequence of the money laundering and/or drug trafficking but it is not possible to quantify the extent of the tax evasion or to estimate the extent, if at all, that it contributed to their capital wealth. For reasons given during the course of the judgment and below, I am satisfied the Receiver has correctly identified recoverable property. I found DG a witness whose evidence, on the central issues, was wholly unreliable. He was so often demonstrably lying. I am not prepared to believe the evidence of TG insofar as she purported to confirm his account or to explain her involvement; she too was shown to be a liar about matters of real moment. While I am prepared to accept that DG was the moving force behind all criminal conduct, she was hardly ignorant of what he was doing and played her full part in the money laundering.’
Judges:
Griffith Williams J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 1015 (QB), [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 39
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
See Also – The Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Gale and others Admn 16-May-2008
Burden of costs in asset revovery case – third party without capacity. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Gale and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 7-Jul-2010
The appellants challenged an order made against them under the 2002 Act where Mr Gale had been prosecuted abroad, but not convicted on drug trafficking allegations. The Agency said that no satisfactory explanation had been given of the considerable . .
At first instance – Gale and Another v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 26-Oct-2011
Civil recovery orders had been made against the applicant. He had been accused and acquitted of drug trafficking allegations in Europe, but the judge had been persuaded that he had no proper explanation for the accumulation of his wealth, and had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417130
