The first respondent applied for the freezing and receiving orders in relation to two properties and chattels obtained by the first respondent under the 2002 Act to be discharged on the footing that the Agency Director has not shown that she has a good arguable case that the property is, or includes, recoverable property as is required by section 245A and 246 of the 2002 Act.
Held: The applications succeeded.
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 3228 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 245A 246
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others Admn 29-Sep-2006
The respondent had objected that the appointment of an interim receiver had been based upon information obtained in the course of investigations undertaken in connection with different proceedings and allegations.
Held: The enforcement agency . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others CA 24-Jul-2007
The defendant had had set aside an interim order for assets recovery. The director appealed against a finding by the court below that he did not have ‘a good arguable case’, justifying an interim recovery order.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and others ChD 27-Feb-2009
Several of the defendants applied for assets to be excluded from an interim receiving order in order to enable them to meet legal expenses. . .
See Also – Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 19-Mar-2009
The applicant defendants sought to have excluded from the effect of restrictions on their dealing with property, property which was held under trusts.
Held: The applications were rejected. There were well established rules allowing trustees . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others (No 2) ChD 1-Jul-2009
The Agency asked to have set aside four orders allowing the defendant to have excluded from his assets subject to an interim receiving order to allow payment of his legal expenses.
Held: There was no rule that assets once excluded from an . .
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The Serious Organised Crime Agency CA 21-Jul-2011
The claimant owned properties subject to charges in favour of a bank. The Agency alleged that the properties represented the proceeds of crime. The agency had settled its claim by taking a second charge over one property. When that was sold, only . .
See Also – Szepietowski v The National Crime Agency SC 23-Oct-2013
S owned several propertie in charge to the bank, but the Agency said that each had been acquired with the proceeds of criminal activity. The parties had settled the claim by the grant of a second charge in favour of the Agency. However when that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.263479
