The court considered the recovery of expenses by a receiver appointed to administer assets of money launderer. The receiver sought to exercise a lien over assets held for the prisoner by the prison to recover the costs of the receivership after the defendant’s conviction for money laundering. The defendant’s wife intervened, seeking to assert her own claim in matrimonial proceedings.
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. The receivership order was been properly made, because the defendant was the legal owner of the property. A lien could properly be exercised over property held by the prison in the convict’s name. The wife’s ancillary relief claim did not have priority.
Judges:
Longmore, Stanley Burnton, Elias LJJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 176, [2009] BPIR 958, [2009] 1 WLR 1845
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – In Re Glatt Admn 2002
If on an application made in respect of a confiscation order by the defendant the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of the amount remaining to be recovered under the order, the court shall issue a . .
See Also – Glatt, Regina v CACD 17-Mar-2006
. .
Appeal from – Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Chaja Glatt and others Admn 2008
The claimant, the former court appointed receiver of the defendant’s estate under a criminal confiscation order under the 1988 Act made on the defendant’s conviction for money laundering sought to claim against the prisoner’s assets hed by the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317976
