The defendant appealed against a confiscation order after his conviction for obtaining a mortgage advance by fraud. Though he had obtained 450k, the house he had purchased had increased considerably in value. The original loan had been repaid in full on a remortgage. The judge had made an order for confiscation at the now substantally increased value less only the defendant’s initial deposit.
Held: The appealsucceeded in part. The confiscation was reduced so that it was proportionate to the original loan and the deposit.
Judges:
Laws LJ, Beatson, Blake JJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Crim 412, [2011] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 4
Links:
Statutes:
Theft Act 1968 15(A), Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Cited by:
Appeal from – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – White v Regina CACD 15-Apr-2014
The defendant sought an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for fraud. After his conviction there had been academic debate as to its basis, and the present application was not opposed. He had originally been charged under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408577
