P - Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
15/3/24
AHMET v TATUM [2024] EWCA Civ 255
There is no rule barring a third party from seeking to have the ownership of property relevant to confiscation proceedings determined by a civil court, even where the issue is between the third party and the prosecutor. POCA does not lay down an exhaustive code for the resolution of such disputes but empowers a civil court to stay or to "allow … to continue on any terms it thinks fit" a claim relating to a property in respect of which a restraint order or an order appointing an enforcement receiver has been applied for or made.
18/5/20
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v LEAHY [2020] EWHC 1242 (QB)
The court was not persuaded to discharge a property freezing order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which covered a portfolio of properties, despite the fact that the defendant had offered to pay into court a sum calculated as the market value of the properties according to Red Book valuations. Taking all relevant factors into account, the court held the balance of convenience was in favour of continuing the order.
17/10/19
Outlines matters to be taken into account in considering whether proceedings have been started within a reasonable time for the purpose of s 42(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
18/7/18
LONSDALE v NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC [2018] EWHC 1843 (QB)
Cross-applications for summary judgment were dismissed. In respect of a claim that a bank acted in breach of contract (by freezing the claimant’s accounts on submitting reports under the Data Protection Act 1998 to the National Crime Agency), the issue whether the bank genuinely suspected that money in the accounts was criminal property was not suitable for summary determination (Shah v HSBC, 2009). Although there was no clear evidence from the bank that it held any relevant genuine suspicion, it could not be said the bank had no reasonable prospect of defending. In respect of a claim that the bank wrongly withheld personal data in response to subject access requests (SARs), there was a strong claim that data processed to determine whether to make the reports to the NCA was personal data but without seeing the withheld documents the court could not be sure they contained personal data. There were also issues fit for trial as to whether the refusal to provide them could be justified on grounds that they included ‘mixed data’ (of other data subjects) and whether the exemption in s 29 DPA applied (because provision of the data would be likely to prejudice detection of crime). A defamation claim could not be struck out. Internal communication of the bank’s suspicions to its employees was publication and was capable of amounting to defamation. There could be a defence of qualified privilege because the bank was obliged by law to report to the NCA, but this would turn on an assessment of the factual evidence. It was appropriate to allow the claimant to inspect the SARs which had been referred to in the pleadings, as this was necessary for the fair disposal of the claims.
21/7/15
SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE v SHAH [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB)
Application to discharge a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on the proceeds of shares refused.
22/4/15
The crime of facilitating retention of criminal property under s 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 can be committed by opening a bank account knowing or suspecting it will be used by a fraudster to deposit the proceeds of crime, even if no criminal property exists until the money has been paid into the accounts.
4/4/14
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v NAMLI [2014] EWCA Civ 411
It could properly be inferred that a bank lending to a customer relied on statements that funds coming into the customer’s account were from a legitimate source. The statements had been false because the funds were in fact derived from criminal activities, as the defendant was aware. The making of false statements as to the source of funds coming into an account, made to a bank which has had concerns about the integrity of its customer, is inherently likely to be relied on by the bank to which they are made in relation to all its subsequent dealings with him. Such a misrepresentation is material to it and likely to induce any loan contracts it enters into with the client. In such circumstances inducement may be inferred without the need for direct evidence (St Paul and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v McConnell Dowell Construction Ltd, 1996). The monies loaned were, for that reason, obtained by or in return for unlawful conduct and profits derived from the use of the funds could be made the subject of a civil recovery order under POCA.
25/7/13
R v SALE [2013] EWCA Crim 1306
The corporate veil was lifted when assessing the benefit obtained by a defendant for the purpose of a confiscation order made following his conviction for making corrupt gifts to secure work for a company he controlled.
23/7/13
R v OYEBOLA [2013] EWCA Crim 1052
Rental income from a criminally-obtained property constitutes a benefit from the crime in the hands of recipient and can therefore fall within the scope of a confiscation order made under POCA.
15/7/13
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY v SZEPIETOWSKI [2013] UKSC 65
Where a bank with a first charge sold a property which the defendant had agreed to transfer to the agency in settlement of an asset recovery claim, the agency could not rely on the doctrine of marshalling to have the benefit of the bank’s charge on the defendant’s family home.
14/2/13
HIGHBURY PENSION FUND MANAGEMENT CO v ZIRFIN INVESTMENTS LTD [2013] EWHC 238 (Ch)
A bank enforced by sale a first charge on a company's property to satisfy the company's borrowing and its liabilities to the bank under guarantees of loans by the bank to associated companies. The claimant, a holder of second and third charges on the property, was entitled under the doctrine of marshalling to a declaration that when all sums due to the bank had been repaid, the claimant would be entitled to the benefit of charges held by the bank on assets of the associated companies which the bank had not enforced. Although those assets had become the subject of a restraint order in favour of the SFO, the claimant's rights were unaffected by the restraint order because they existed before the restraint order was made.
5/10/12
SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AGENCY v HYMANS (QB)
Following Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry [2012] UKSC 35, there is no power to make property freezing orders under s 245B POCA 2002 on assets outside the UK.
© Copyright 2015 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer