Criminal Finances Bill proposed

bigbenA new Criminal Finances Bill was proposed in the Queen’s Speech at the opening of the new parliamentary year on 18 May 2016.  The new Bill is intended to assist in tackling corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

The Bill itself has not yet been published, but the Home Office have said that the Bill will allow the government to recoup more criminal assets by reforming the law on proceeds of crime, including provisions to strengthen enforcement powers and protect the public. It will also implement a more effective regime to support reporting of suspicious financial activity, make it easier to seize illicit funds and improve coordination between the public and private sectors to tackle criminal financial behaviour.

[UPDATE: The Criminal Finances Bill has now been published and an article on it appears HERE]

The bill will:

  • introduce a criminal offence for corporations who fail to stop their staff facilitating tax evasion;
  • improve the operation of the suspicious activity reports regime to encourage better use of public and private sector resources against the highest threats, to target entities that carry out money laundering instead of individual transactions, and to provide the National Crime Agency with new powers; and
  • improve the ability of law enforcement agencies and courts to recover criminal assets more effectively, particularly in cases such as those linked to grand corruption.

 

New offence

The new offence for corporations who fail to stop their staff facilitating tax evasion may have similarities to the offence committed by a commercial organisation which fails to prevent bribery.  That was a new offence introduced by s7 Bribery Act 2010.

The essence of the Bribery Act offence is that it occurs when a person associated with a relevant commercial organisation bribes another person with the intention of getting or keeping business, or an advantage in the conduct of business, for the organisation.

So it could be that the new offence will be committed by a corporation where a person working for the corporation facilitates the evasion of tax by the corporation itself or by another person.

My expectation would be that in this context (as in the case of the Bribery Act offence) the offender could be an incorporated company or a partnership and that a person working for the corporation could be widely defined and not limited to employees of the corporation (so as to include partners and self-employed ‘staff’ and agents instructed by the corporation).

So, for example, a firm of accountants, lawyers or tax advisers would commit the offence if it failed to prevent a person working for it facilitating tax evasion by a client of the firm.

Under existing legislation a person who is knowingly concerned in tax evasion commits an offence, but an incorporated body would not be subject to such prosecution unless the ‘controlling mind’ of the company were ‘knowingly concerned’ in the evasion and acting dishonestly.  The new offence will therefore place an incorporated body at risk of prosecution in a significantly wider range of circumstances.

Again it may be the case (as with the Bribery Act offence) that it would be a defence for the firm to show that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons working for it from undertaking such conduct.

The maximum penalty for the Bribery Act offence is an unlimited fine and a similar penalty may be prescribed for the proposed new offence.

 

Suspicious Activity Reports

A new focus for the Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) regime would be welcome.  Over 300,000 such reports are received by the National Crime Agency (NCA) each year.  The vast majority of these reports are from the High Street banks.  Some of these reports must be based on very limited information about the bank’s customer and his financial affairs.

A proportion of these reports will incorporate consent requests, meaning that the NCA need to urgently address the report as they have a statutory time limit requiring a response within 7 working days.  Yet these urgent cases may not be the most important matters to which the attention of the NCA should be directed.

We shall have to see what detailed proposals are in the Bill to shift the focus of SARs to encourage better use of public and private sector resources against the highest threats and to target entities that carry out money laundering instead of individual transactions.

 

Recovering criminal assets

The authorities recover criminal assets by confiscation under Part 2, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and by civil recovery under Part 5 of the Act.  Broadly speaking, confiscation applies where a defendant has been convicted of an offence from which he has obtained a benefit and obliges him to pay a sum of money to the court (so the focus of confiscation is on the defendant); whereas civil recovery does not necessarily involve any criminal conviction but requires specified property to be forfeit to the state where that property is, or represents, proceeds of criminal conduct (so the focus of civil recovery is on the asset).

Confiscation law was subject to significant amendment relatively recently by the Serious Crime Act 2015.  It may be that the Criminal Finances Bill will concentrate on amendments to civil recovery law.

 

Conclusion

No doubt the Criminal Finances Bill is a topic to which we shall be repeatedly returning in this blog as matters develop over the coming months.

[UPDATE: The Criminal Finances Bill has now been published and an article on it appears HERE]

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applicable in England and Wales. Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Piercing the corporate veil in confiscation

impostorPiercing the corporate veil in confiscation has a long history, but there is nothing expressly on the subject in Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (which deals with confiscation in England and Wales).  Instead the approach to piercing the corporate veil in confiscation is based on long established English legal principles and caselaw of more general application.

It is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that if a criminal attempts to sidestep his responsibility for his criminal actions by interposing a company through which to commit his crimes then the courts should be able to ‘look through’ the company to the underlying reality of the situation.

On the other hand there is a long established legal principle that a company is a legal entity which is distinct from its directors and shareholders.

This article attempts to trace recent developments in piercing the corporate veil in caselaw in respect of confiscation and to suggest some practical implications of the present-day legal position in England and Wales.

WARNING – THIS IS A LENGTHY BLOG POST – IN EXCESS OF 6,000 WORDS

  1. Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd 1896
  2. Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne 1933
  3. Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley 1956
  4. HMRC v Hare 1996
  5. R v Dimsey and Allen 1999
  6. CPS v Jennings 2008
  7. R v Seager and Blatch 2009
  8. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013
  9. R v Sale 2013
  10. McDowell and Singh v R 2015
  11. Boyle Transport (NI) Ltd v R 2016
  12. A clear and coherent picture?
  13. Practical implications

 

Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd 1896

Consideration of the corporate veil in the law of England and Wales has to start with the 1896 decision of the House of Lords (as the UK Supreme Court was known until relatively recently) in the case of Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22.

This was not a criminal case, it was a case involving the insolvency of a limited company.  At that time company law (based on the Companies Act of 1862) required that a limited company must have at least seven shareholders in order to be legally constituted.  A Salomon and Co Ltd was duly incorporated with seven shareholders, one of whom was Mr Aron Salomon.  The remaining shareholders were Mr Salomon’s wife and five of his grown up children.

Mr Salomon had operated a successful sole trader business as leather merchant and boot and shoe manufacturer for many years.  He transferred this business to the newly formed company and in exchange received the vast majority of the shares in the company in part payment and obtained a debenture creating a charge over the assets of the company in respect of other monies due to him.

The result was that Mr Salomon become both the majority shareholder and a secured creditor of the company which carried on the business which he had formerly carried on in his own name.

Shortly after the business had been transferred to the company there appears to have been a downturn in the boot and shoe trade.  The company lost contracts and found itself with unsaleable stock.

When the business failed the company’s liquidator took legal action claiming that the arrangement had been, in general terms, a fraud designed to allow Mr Salomon to carry on his own business and reap the profits for himself but with protection from his creditors.  The liquidator claimed monies off Mr Salomon for the benefit of those creditors.  In court the business was described as a ‘one man’ company and it was suggested that the company was simply an agent of Mr Salomon, or alternatively that the relationship between Mr Salomon and the company was one of trustee and beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal considered that the objective of companies’ legislation was to facilitate the coming together of a group of people in business.  That was not what had happened here.  Indeed the Court of Appeal went as far as to say that “Mr Aron Salomon’s scheme is a device to defraud creditors”.

Whilst the Court of Appeal had found in favour of the liquidator the House of Lords reversed that decision, holding that A Salomon and Co Ltd was a properly constituted company and a distinct legal entity.  On the incorporation of the limited company proper procedures had been followed in accordance with the letter of the law.  There had been no fraud.

In consequence, the House of Lords held, Mr Salomon was entitled to the protection of limited liability and was not liable to meet the claims of the company’s creditors.

 

Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne 1933

Perhaps the first well known case in which the court pierced the corporate veil is Gilford Motor Co Ltd v Horne [1933] Ch 935.

Mr EB Horne had been the managing director of the Gilford Motor Co.  His contract of employment precluded him being engaged in any competing business in a specified geographical area for five years after the end of his employment “either solely or jointly with or as agent for any other person, firm or company”.

He left Gilford and carried on a competing business in the specified area, initially in his own name.  He then formed a company, JM Horne & Co Ltd, named after his wife, in which she and a business associate were shareholders.  The trial judge found that the company had been set up in this way to enable the business to be carried on under his own control but without incurring liability for breach of the covenant not to compete with his former employer.

However the reality, in the judge’s view, was that the company was being used as “the channel through which the defendant Mr Horne was carrying on his business.”

The company was restrained by the court in order to ensure that Mr Horne was deprived of the benefit which he might otherwise have derived from the separate legal personality of the company.

It does not follow that JM Horne & Co Ltd was to be identified with Mr Horne for any other purpose.  Mr Horne’s personal creditors would not, for example, have been entitled simply by virtue of the facts found by the court to enforce their claims against the assets of the company.

In short, Mr Horne was found to have created the company in order to evade his own pre-existing legal obligation not to compete with his former employer.  In those circumstances the court pierced the corporate veil to prevent Mr Horne from benefiting by abusing the separate legal personality of the new company.

 

Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley 1956

The case of Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 was not a case focussing on the corporate veil.

But it is an important and relevant case because of the famous dictum of Lord Denning in that case:-

“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud.  No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.  Fraud unravels everything.  The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever…”

This illustrates a broader principle governing cases in which the benefit of some apparently absolute legal principle has been obtained by dishonesty.  The authorities show that there are limited circumstances in which the law treats the use of a company as a means of evading the law as dishonest for this purpose.

 

HMRC v Hare 1996

The modern law of confiscation in England and Wales began with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act of 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act of 1988.

The case of HM Customs & Excise v Hare and Others [1996] EWCA Civ 1351 was concerned with a restraint order made under Criminal Justice Act 1988 powers against a number of individual defendants and certain companies under their control.

The basis of the application to the judge and the restraint order which he made was that the individual defendants, through the companies and otherwise, had carried out excise duty fraud in relation to alcoholic liquor in a sum then estimated as being in excess of £100m.  No charges had been brought against the companies themselves however.

It appears not to have been disputed that some of the companies’ trading had been legitimate although perhaps only a small part.  The accounting records of the companies were wholly inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence provided a prima facie case that the defendants had control of the companies; that the companies had been used for fraud, in particular the evasion of excise duty on a large scale; that the defendants regarded the companies as carrying on a family business, and that company cash had benefitted the defendants in substantial amounts.

The Court of Appeal considered that Customs and Excise ought not to be criticised for not charging the companies.  The more complex commercial activities become, the more vital it is for prosecuting authorities to be selective in whom and what they charge, so that issues can be presented in as clear and short a form as possible.

It seemed to the Court of Appeal that no useful purpose would have been served by introducing into criminal proceedings the additional complexities as to the corporate mind and will, which charging the companies would have involved.  Conversely, there could have been justified criticism had the companies been charged merely as a device for obtaining orders under the Act in relation to their assets.

In all the circumstances, it was appropriate to lift the corporate veil in this case and to treat the stock in the companies’ warehouses and the motor vehicles as property held by the individual defendants.

 

R v Dimsey and Allen 1999

The case of R v Dimsey and Allen [1999] EWCA Crim 2261 was concerned with a confiscation order made under Criminal Justice Act 1988 powers against Mr Allen.

A large part of Mr Allen’s benefit for confiscation purposes was said to consist of the corporation tax liabilities of certain offshore companies, which had been evaded.  Mr Allen contended on appeal that these were not liabilities of his (they were liabilities of the companies concerned) and hence not benefit of his.

It was the prosecution case that his income and assets were held by offshore companies.  The properties in which he and his family lived were bought and sold in the name of offshore companies.  Offshore companies were used to pay for personal expenditure, including holidays, school fees and ordinary household expenses.  It was the prosecution case that Mr Allen himself managed and controlled the companies in the United Kingdom.  That aspect of the prosecution case was not challenged for the purposes of his appeal.

The Court of Appeal gave short shrift to the argument that the relevant benefit was not Mr Allen’s, holding that “it is plain from authorities cited by the Crown that the corporate veil may fall to be lifted where companies are used as a vehicle for fraud.  Here the companies in question were the appellant’s alter ego.  On this part of the case it seems to us that the Crown’s position is simply incontestable.  In those circumstances the appeal against the making of the confiscation order will be dismissed”.

 

CPS v Jennings 2008

On 14 May 2008 the House of Lords handed down important judgments in three confiscation cases, R v May [2008] UKHL 28, CPS v Jennings [2008] UKHL 29 and R v Green [2008] UKHL 30.

On the face of it Mr Jennings’ appeal concerned a restraint order made under Criminal Justice Act 1988 powers in relation to his assets, pending his trial on a charge of conspiracy to defraud.  But the issues raised in the appeal also concerned the amount of the benefit “obtained” by Mr Jennings from his offence.

The conspiracy was described by the prosecution as ‘an advance fee fraud’.  It was carried on through a company, UK Finance (Europe) Ltd, which had originally been in legitimate business selling second hand cars and arranging finance for the purchasers.  The company advertised itself as a lender, targeting people with poor credit ratings.  Applications for loans were made over the telephone.  An administration fee of £70 was required in return for arranging a loan.  But in fact the company had no money to lend, and no arrangements with any other source of finance to make loans, and no loans were ever made.

Mr Jennings was an employee of company.  He was neither a director nor a shareholder.

The prosecution alleged that each of the conspirators had benefited to the tune of the total amount of monies obtained from the fraud, calculated by the financial analyst employed by the police at £584,637.  This sum was made up of £460,809, which had gone through the company’s books, and £123,828, which was the value of postal orders cashed at a local post office.  Mr Jennings’ argument was that, over the period of the conspiracy, he and his wife could not have received more than, say, £50,000, made up of salary, a payment from the company’s loan account, and the postal orders which he had cashed “on several occasions” when the sole director, Mr Phillips, was away.

In relation to the amount of benefit Mr Jennings had “obtained” the judgment reached no conclusion, leaving that to be determined on the making of any confiscation order against him.  The court noted however that “obtained” must mean “obtained by him”.

In its judgment in the case of May the House of Lords said:-

“D ordinarily obtains property if in law he owns it, whether alone or jointly, which will ordinarily connote a power of disposition or control, as where a person directs a payment or conveyance of property to someone else. He ordinarily obtains a pecuniary advantage if (among other things) he evades a liability to which he is personally subject”.

Matters relating to Mr Jennings had moved on since the restraint order had been made in that, by the time of the House of Lords’ judgment, both Mr Phillips and Mr Jennings had been found guilty of the fraud.

In relation to piercing the corporate veil the House of Lords said, “In the ordinary way acts done in the name of and on behalf of a limited company are treated in law as the acts of the company, not of the individuals who do them.  That is the veil which incorporation confers.  But here the acts done by Mr Jennings and his associate Mr Phillips in the name of the company have led to the conviction of one and a plea of guilty by the other.  Thus the veil of incorporation has been not so much pierced as rudely torn away”.

That judgment might be regarded as the high water mark in piercing the corporate veil in confiscation proceedings.

 

R v Seager and Blatch 2009

The significance of the Court of Appeal decision in R v Seager and Blatch [2009] EWCA Crim 1303 is not the actual outcome for Mr Seager and Mr Blatch.  Each of them had been convicted of acting as a company director whilst disqualified from doing so.  The court held in each case that the corporate veil should not be pierced as the relevant company in each case was operating a legitimate business (albeit that the defendants should not have been acting as directors of those companies).

The significance of the judgment is in the summary of the law on the subject of piercing the corporate veil which is included in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held:-

“There was no major disagreement between counsel on the legal principles by reference to which a court is entitled to ‘pierce’ or ‘rend’ or ‘remove’ the ‘corporate veil’.  It is ‘hornbook’ law that a duly formed and registered company is a separate legal entity from those who are its shareholders and it has rights and liabilities that are separate from its shareholders.

A court can ‘pierce’ the carapace of the corporate entity and look at what lies behind it only in certain circumstances.  It cannot do so simply because it considers it might be just to do so.  Each of these circumstances involves impropriety and dishonesty.  The court will then be entitled to look for the legal substance, not the just the form.

In the context of criminal cases the courts have identified at least three situations when the corporate veil can be pierced.

  • First if an offender attempts to shelter behind a corporate façade, or veil to hide his crime and his benefits from it.
  • Secondly, where an offender does acts in the name of a company which (with the necessary mens rea) constitute a criminal offence which leads to the offender’s conviction.
  • Thirdly, where the transaction or business structures constitute a ‘device’, ‘cloak’ or ‘sham’, i.e. an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transaction or structure so as to deceive third parties or the courts.”

 

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013

The judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others [2013] UKSC 34 is undoubtedly significant in relation to the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.  In view of all that had gone before it may also be regarded as surprising.

The case arose from the divorce of Michael and Yasmin Prest.  In essence Yasmin Prest made a claim, following her divorce from Michael Prest, on seven properties the legal ownership of which was held in the names of various companies.

One of the issues which arose, or appeared to arise, was whether the court was entitled to pierce the corporate veil to enable the court to ensure the satisfaction of a financial order made in the matrimonial court in favour of Yasmin Prest.

Ultimately the Supreme Court held that it was unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil as in reality the seven properties, though legally held in the names of the companies, were beneficially owned by Michael Prest.

However the Supreme Court considered in depth the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and found little to commend the concept.  Lord Sumption said:-

“In my view, the principle that the court may be justified in piercing the corporate veil if a company’s separate legal personality is being abused for the purpose of some relevant wrongdoing is well established in the authorities.

It is true that most of the statements of principle in the authorities are obiter, because the corporate veil was not pierced.  It is also true that most cases in which the corporate veil was pierced could have been decided on other grounds.  But the consensus that there are circumstances in which the court may pierce the corporate veil is impressive.

I would not for my part be willing to explain that consensus out of existence.  This is because I think that the recognition of a limited power to pierce the corporate veil in carefully defined circumstances is necessary if the law is not to be disarmed in the face of abuse.

I also think that provided the limits are recognised and respected, it is consistent with the general approach of English law to the problems raised by the use of legal concepts to defeat mandatory rules of law.

The difficulty is to identify what is a relevant wrongdoing.  References to a ‘facade’ or ‘sham’ beg too many questions to provide a satisfactory answer.

It seems to me that two distinct principles lie behind these protean terms, and that much confusion has been caused by failing to distinguish between them.  They can conveniently be called the concealment principle and the evasion principle.

The concealment principle is legally banal and does not involve piercing the corporate veil at all.  It is that the interposition of a company or perhaps several companies so as to conceal the identity of the real actors will not deter the courts from identifying them, assuming that their identity is legally relevant.  In these cases the court is not disregarding the ‘facade’, but only looking behind it to discover the facts which the corporate structure is concealing.

The evasion principle is different.  It is that the court may disregard the corporate veil if there is a legal right against the person in control of it which exists independently of the company’s involvement, and a company is interposed so that the separate legal personality of the company will defeat the right or frustrate its enforcement”.

He went on:-
“I conclude that there is a limited principle of English law which applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control.

The court may then pierce the corporate veil for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage that they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality.  The principle is properly described as a limited one, because in almost every case where the test is satisfied, the facts will in practice disclose a legal relationship between the company and its controller which will make it unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil.

I consider that if it is not necessary to pierce the corporate veil, it is not appropriate to do so, because on that footing there is no public policy imperative which justifies that course.

For all of these reasons, the principle has been recognised far more often than it has been applied.  But the recognition of a small residual category of cases where the abuse of the corporate veil to evade or frustrate the law can be addressed only by disregarding the legal personality of the company is, I believe, consistent with authority and with long-standing principles of legal policy”.

Lady Hale in a brief supporting judgment referred to “examples of the principle that the individuals who operate limited companies should not be allowed to take unconscionable advantage of the people with whom they do business”.

Lord Mance added:-
“It is however often dangerous to seek to foreclose all possible future situations which may arise and I would not wish to do so.  What can be said with confidence is that the strength of the principle in Salomon’s case and the number of other tools which the law has available mean that, if there are other situations in which piercing the veil may be relevant as a final fall-back, they are likely to be novel and very rare”.

In short the Supreme Court held that, in part because of other remedies available (which should then be used in preference), it will almost never be necessary to rely on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil.

However it has to be said that the Supreme Court was not considering criminal misconduct and was not referred to cases such as Hare and Jennings.

It also should be remembered that the Supreme Court appears to have endorsed the dictum of Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd that “fraud unravels everything” (which applies not only to situations involving limited companies).

 

R v Sale 2013

The Court of Appeal decision in R v Sale [2013] EWCA Crim 1306 appears to be the first confiscation appeal after the Supreme Court decision in Prest in which issues of piercing the corporate veil were considered.

Mr Sale had been convicted of corruption and fraud by false representation in connection with gifts given to an employee of Network Rail.  Mr Sale was managing director of Sale Service and Maintenance Ltd which became a supplier to Network Rail.  The company obtained contracts for approximately £2m worth of work in consequence of the corruption.

In relation to the confiscation order Mr Sale argued that his benefit should be limited to the financial advantages he had himself received, rather than the sums received by the company under the contracts.

The Court of Appeal held that, following the Supreme Court decision in Prest, the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Seager and Blatch was still good law but was to be understood in the light of Prest.

In particular in relation to the three circumstances in which it had previously been said that “the corporate veil can be pierced” Seager and Blatch should now to be understood to mean instead that “a benefit obtained by a company is also treated in law by PoCA as a benefit obtained by the individual criminal”.

Mr Sale was the sole controller of the company and there was a very close inter-relationship between the corrupt actions of Mr Sale and steps taken by the company in advancing those corrupt acts and intentions, the reality was that the activities of both Mr Sale and the company were so interlinked as to be indivisible.  Insofar as the company was involved, what it did served to hide what Mr Sale was doing.

Accordingly in Mr Sale’s confiscation proceedings it was appropriate for the court to have regard to the transactions between Network Rail and the limited company and not to confine itself to the amounts which Mr Sale had personally received.

It may be noted that in Sale Mr Sale’s available amount was in excess of his benefit in any event and so was not a matter for consideration by the court.

 

McDowell and Singh v R 2015

In McDowell and Singh v R [2015] EWCA Crim 173 the Court of Appeal adopted the approach employed in Sale.

In particular it found that the defendant was the sole controller and beneficial owner of the company, which was his alter ego.  Accordingly the Crown Court was entitled to examine the receipts and profits of the company for the purpose of ascertaining the benefit obtained from the criminal conduct of the defendant personally.

 

Boyle Transport (NI) Ltd v R 2016

The case of Boyle Transport (Northern Ireland) Ltd v R [2016] EWCA Crim 19 was more factually complex.

Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle had been at the relevant time the only directors of a haulage company, Boyle Transport Ltd, and had between them owned just over 50% of the shares in the company.  The remaining shares were held by other members of the Boyle family.

Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle and a number of drivers employed by the company were convicted of conspiring to make false instruments in relation to tachograph records relating to the use of the company’s haulage vehicles.

Confiscation proceedings against Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle followed.  In those confiscation proceedings the court held that each of the defendants had a criminal lifestyle and that in excess of 50% of the turnover of the company over a period of six years was to be regarded as benefit jointly obtained by them.  That resulted in a finding that each of Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle had obtained a benefit of just over £10m.

The available amount of each defendant was significantly less than the benefit.  The court found the available amount of Patrick Boyle to be £1,097,622 and that of Mark Boyle to be £738,171.  In each case the available amount of the defendant included assets held by the company.

An added complication was that a new company, Boyle Transport (Northern Ireland) Ltd, had been incorporated and the entire fleet of vehicles and trailers of the old company and other assets were transferred to the new company of which Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle were not directors.

The Crown Court found that the transfer of assets to the new company was not genuine but a mere device and made an order for the appointment of an enforcement receiver.  The new company appealed against that order.  At the same time Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle appealed against the original confiscation orders.

On behalf of the new company it was contended that the old company was established as a legitimate company, carrying on a legitimate business: road haulage.  It had substantial assets and many employees, all deployed for that legitimate purpose.  True it was that business had been carried on, in a very significant way, in breach of the relevant regulations.  But that did not justify disregarding or piercing the corporate veil.  The old company was not an alter ego company on any view: it was not within the concealment principle.  Nor had the old company been established or operated in a way coming within the evasion principle.  In the circumstances of this case it was a negation of well settled company law principles, as confirmed in Prest, and indeed a negation of realities to equate the turnover obtained by the old company with benefit obtained by Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle and to designate assets held by the old company as assets held by them.  That they were the ‘operating minds’ did not mean that they were the owners.  The judge had placed too much emphasis on the wrongdoing and not enough emphasis on the actual benefit they as individuals had obtained.

In essence the Court of Appeal agreed with these contentions and held that it would not be justified to treat the turnover of the old company, or the major part of it, as benefit obtained by Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle individually; nor would it be justified to treat the assets of the old company (and hence of the new company) as realisable property of Patrick Boyle and Mark Boyle individually.

The Court of Appeal in its judgment in Boyle went on to comment upon earlier decisions in Hare, Prest, Sale and McDowell.  It considered that Sale and McDowell were decisions on their particular facts and implied that the caution expressed in the decision in Hare, many years ago, concerning the undesirability of charging the company itself with a criminal offence, may now be misplaced following the decision of the Supreme Court in Prest.

With regard to the decision in Jennings, the Court of Appeal noted that in that case the activities of the company were wholly fraudulent and it regarded Jennings as an example of the concealment principle identified in Prest.

The Court added:-

“The reality is that in the Crown Courts – as in many other courts – the phrase ‘piercing’ the corporate veil had been used broadly without focusing precisely on the two concepts of concealment and evasion as have now been identified by Lord Sumption in Prest.  One must not forget the obvious point that the context of confiscation proceedings under the 2002 Act is always criminal.  That, in factual terms, is a context very different from Salomon and is very different also from many of the reported decisions on lifting or piercing the corporate veil.

It is that criminal context which is capable of explaining why, in an appropriate case in confiscation proceedings, the involvement of a limited company quite frequently can, on the facts, be described as a mere facade or sham.   The companies in such cases are properly treated as alter egos, or agents, of their criminal controllers.

Many of the cases of this kind thus are clear examples of Lord Sumption’s concealment principle and do not involve, in the sense explained by Lord Sumption, ‘piercing’ the corporate veil at all: and it is that latter doctrine which is the one of “limited” and “rare” application”.

The Court however also cautioned against too great a readiness to reach a finding of alter ego in relation to any company, noting that “the fact that the incorporator is sole shareholder and director of a company does not mean that the company is thereby and for that reason alone to be treated as his alter ego”.

In relation to the much quoted passage from Seager and Blatch the Court suggested that the opening sentence be further modified to read, “In the context of criminal cases the courts have identified at least three situations when a benefit obtained by a company may, depending on the facts, also be treated in law by POCA as a benefit obtained by the individual criminal….”.

The Court of Appeal referred to six overlapping general propositions which Crown Courts may wish to take into account when considering piercing the corporate veil in confiscation proceedings:-

  1. The test is not simply a test of “justice”, which would be too vague and unprincipled.
  2. The Crown Court needs to assess the reality of the matter, but without departing from established principles relating to the separate legal status of a limited company.
  3. Confiscation is not aimed at punishment.
  4. The principles pertaining to piercing the corporate veil in confiscation are the same as those which apply in the civil courts.
  5. Regard should be had to the nature and extent of the criminality involved.
  6. Where a company is solely owned and controlled by a convicted defendant it will not necessarily follow that the company is his alter ego.

 

A clear and coherent picture?

So do we, as a result of all this caselaw, have a clear and coherent picture of when in confiscation proceedings it will be justified to treat the turnover of a limited company as benefit obtained by a defendant personally and when it will be justified to treat the assets of the company as realisable property of a defendant individually?

I suggest that we do not.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Prest the Court of Appeal could have abandoned the obiter dicta in Seager and Blatch and proposed an entirely new formulation in relation to piercing the veil of incorporation in confiscation proceedings.  It did not.

Or the Court of Appeal could have concluded that the dictum of Lord Denning that “fraud unravels everything” applies in confiscation proceedings and that the Supreme Court in Prest was not addressing such proceedings, which arise in a criminal context – reaffirming Seager and Blatch.  It did not.

Instead since Prest the Court of Appeal has progressively watered down Seager and Blatch and found itself facing different ways in Sale, McDowell and Boyle, whilst controverting Hare for good measure.

Prosecutors, lawyers and courts may well find themselves in many cases unclear as to the principles to be followed in quantifying a convicted defendant’s benefit and available amount for confiscation purposes where a limited company is involved.

 

Practical implications

In Boyle the Court of Appeal found that the convicted defendants were the only two directors of the company, that they between them owned more that 50% of the shares in the company and that more than 50% of the turnover of the company was derived from criminal conduct.  Yet they held that it would not be appropriate to ascribe to the convicted defendants for confiscation purposes any part of the turnover or assets of the company.

Defendants and their legal advisers will thereby be encouraged to contest in confiscation proceedings the piercing of the corporate veil in every case in which there is a sliver of legitimate trading in the operations of a company – and perhaps even in cases where there is not.

Prosecutors will be encouraged to charge not only company directors but also the companies themselves with criminal offences, with a view to avoiding in confiscation proceedings the difficulties which the Crown have encountered in Boyle.

As the outcome in Boyle demonstrates, individuals whose criminal conduct is undertaken through a limited company may fare very much better in confiscation than those whose criminality is undertaken individually or in an unincorporated partnership, unless the company itself is also charged, convicted and made subject to confiscation.  That may be particularly relevant in cases of money laundering, people or arms trafficking, bribery, intellectual property or modern slavery offences, and in relation to regulatory offences.

Even where an individual and a company are both subject to confiscation it is easy to imagine circumstances in which the bulk of the benefit would be regarded as obtained by the company (rather than the individual) with the result that the individual defendant would be less likely to be obliged to realise his legitimately acquired assets to satisfy a confiscation order.

I would suggest that in preparation for a confiscation hearing both prosecution and defence will now in many cases wish to prepare two computations of benefit and available amount based on the alternative outcomes that the court does, or does not, pierce the corporate veil.

Financial investigators preparing s16 statements for the prosecution will need to be alive to the possibility that assets apparently held by a company may be beneficially owned by an individual or vice versa, as will the lawyers and forensic accountants instructed by the defendants.

Where both the company and its directors are convicted of an offence and are subject to confiscation proceedings there will be an additional difficulty in valuing the director’s shares in the company for the purpose of determining his available amount, because the value of his shares may depend upon the outcome of the confiscation proceedings against the company.

All of these factors are likely to create extra work for prosecutors, lawyers, forensic accountants and the courts in years to come.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales. Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Balance of probabilities in confiscation

balance-scalesIn confiscation law ‘the balance of probabilities’ plays a key role.  Under s6(7) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the court must decide any question relevant to the determination of the amount which the defendant is to be ordered to pay on the balance of probabilities.

But what does that mean?

 

The balance of probabilities

Some years ago the House of Lords (as the UK Supreme Court was known at the time) considered the meaning of the phrase ‘the balance of probabilities’ in the case of Re H & Others (minors) [1995] UKHL 16.  The case actually concerned an application by a local authority for a care order under the Children Act 1989 in respect of certain children who may or may not have become subject to significant harm if they remained in the care of their mother and step-father.

Nevertheless I suggest that the House of Lords’ comments in that case on the meaning of the expression ‘the balance of probabilities’ are of wider application.  Indeed when s6(7) of the then Proceeds of Crime Bill was being considered by a committee of MPs they were referred by the government minister to this judgment.

The House of Lords’ judgment includes the following:-

“The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury.  . . .  Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation.”

“Although the result is much the same, this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established.”

In the later case of Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, the House of Lords commented on this passage, stressing the importance of the words “to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case“.  The judgment went on:-

“There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities.”

In another House of Lords case in 2008, Re CD (Northern Ireland) [2008] UKHL 33 Lord Carswell said, at para [28]:-

“A possible source of confusion is the failure to bear in mind with sufficient clarity the fact that in some contexts a court or tribunal has to look at the facts more critically or more anxiously than in others before it can be satisfied to the requisite standard.  The standard itself is, however, finite and unvarying.  Situations which make such heightened examination necessary may be the inherent unlikelihood of the occurrence taking place (Lord Hoffmann’s example of the animal seen in Regent’s Park [which may have been a lioness or an Alsatian]), the seriousness of the allegation to be proved or, in some cases, the consequences which could follow from acceptance of proof of the relevant fact.  The seriousness of the allegation requires no elaboration: a tribunal of fact will look closely into the facts grounding an allegation of fraud before accepting that it has been established.  The seriousness of consequences is another facet of the same proposition: if it is alleged that a bank manager has committed a minor peculation, that could entail very serious consequences for his career, so making it the less likely that he would risk doing such a thing.  These are all matters of ordinary experience, requiring the application of good sense on the part of those who have to decide such issues.  They do not require a different standard of proof or a specially cogent standard of evidence, merely appropriately careful consideration by the tribunal before it is satisfied of the matter which has to be established.”

In a further case, Re S-B Children [2009] UKSC 17, Lady Hale in the Supreme Court said:-

“There is no necessary connection between the seriousness of an allegation and the improbability that it has taken place. The test is the balance of probabilities, nothing more and nothing less.”

So it is the inherent improbability of an event, not its seriousness, which as a matter of common sense will be in the mind of the court when deciding an issue on the balance of probabilities.

 

Confiscation proceedings

In confiscation proceedings the court will be dealing with a defendant who has been convicted of an offence.  The existence of that conviction, and the evidence already accepted by the court in relation to it, cannot be ignored by the court when drawing conclusions relevant to the confiscation order.

However I suggest the court should not lose sight of the significance of ‘the balance of probabilities’ when determining matters which are in dispute in the consequent confiscation proceedings.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales.  There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s confiscation proceedings in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this.  Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Defence opening statements to be introduced

Two way trafficDefence opening statements are to be introduced in the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court in England and Wales from 4 April 2016.  Changes are to be made to Rules 24.3 and 25.9 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 to introduce defence opening statements, which are to be heard immediately after the prosecution opening speech, where a defendant pleads ‘not guilty’.

One of the aims of this change is to better identify for Magistrates and jurors, at an early stage, those matters which are in dispute between prosecution and defence.  They may then have this in mind when hearing the prosecution and defence evidence.

Prior to this rule change it has normally been the case that only the prosecuting counsel has made an opening speech, immediately before calling witnesses for the prosecution.  The prosecution evidence has typically been followed by the presentation of any witnesses called by the defence (usually starting with the defendant himself if he is to give evidence), then closing speeches – first by the prosecution and then by the defence.  In the Crown Court this has been followed by the judge’s summing up of the evidence and his directions on the law, before the jury retire to consider their verdict.

It could therefore be the case that it would not be until almost the conclusion of the trial that the Magistrates or jurors would hear a structured presentation of the key elements of the defence challenge to the prosecution case.

Under the new Rules it is intended that Magistrates and jurors should be enabled to have the essence of the defence in mind, focussing on what is in issue, when hearing all of the evidence.

The Rule change follows a recommendation in the Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings by Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, published on 23 January 2015.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article discusses the criminal law of England and Wales.  There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s trial in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this.  Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Confiscation & proportionality

Scales of justiceSince the UK Supreme Court decision in R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51 the issue of proportionality in confiscation has been exercising legal minds in England & Wales.

As a direct consequence of that judgment, in 2015 the UK Parliament amended s6(5) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by adding at the end of the subsection the words, “Paragraph (b) applies only if, or to the extent that, it would not be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay the recoverable amount”.

But what does this mean in practice?

 

The 5 steps to making a confiscation order

One can now view the Crown Court process at a confiscation hearing (in a simplified way) as involving a 5 step process resulting in the confiscation order.

  1. Identify and evaluate the defendant’s ‘benefit’ in accordance with s76 (taking into consideration as appropriate the valuation provisions of sections 79 & 80 and making where applicable the assumptions in s10),
  2. Evaluate, if possible, the defendant’s ‘available amount’ in accordance with s9 (taking into account the provisions of sections 77 to 81),
  3. Determine which of (1) and (2) is the lower sum, this sum is called the ‘recoverable amount’, s7,
  4. Consider whether a confiscation order requiring the convicted defendant to pay the ‘recoverable amount’ would be disproportionate, s6(5),
  5. If a confiscation order requiring payment of the ‘recoverable amount’ would not be disproportionate make a confiscation order in the ‘recoverable amount’; but if such an order would be disproportionate then make a confiscation order requiring payment of the highest amount which would not be disproportionate.

 

What is meant by ‘disproportionate’?

The need to avoid a disproportionate confiscation order springs from Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, often referred to as ‘A1P1’.  This in effect requires that there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed by the State in the deprivation of property as a form of penalty and the legitimate aim which is sought to be realised by the deprivation.

To put this another way, legislation should not operate more harshly in removing assets from the convicted defendant than is required by the legitimate aims of that legislation.  The legislation must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual defendant’s fundamental rights.

A confiscation order which is so harsh as to fail to maintain a fair balance between these competing demands and requirements will be disproportionate.

 

What is proportionate?

The UK Supreme Court in Waya gave examples of what it would regard as proportionate in the context of confiscation.

They said that a legitimate, and proportionate, confiscation order may have one or more of three effects:

      (a) it may require the defendant to pay the whole of a sum which he has obtained jointly with others;
      (b) it may require several defendants each to pay a sum which has been obtained, successively, by each of them, as where one defendant pays another for criminal property;
      (c) it may require a defendant to pay the whole of a sum which he has obtained by crime without enabling him to set off expenses of the crime.

It follows from this that a confiscation order will not be regarded by the courts as disproportionate simply because it requires a convicted defendant to pay more than the sum which he would have been required to pay to put him back in the financial position he would now be in if he had not committed his crime.

Although the expression ‘pay back’ is sometimes used in connection with confiscation, a confiscation order can require much more than that.

 

Examples of ‘disproportionate’ orders

The UK Supreme Court however did indicate that where the benefit obtained by the defendant has been wholly restored to the loser a confiscation order which required him to pay the same sum again does not achieve the object of the legislation and so would be disproportionate.

Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have extended that to other situations which the courts have considered to be analogous to restoration of property to the loser.

 

Loose ends

The ramifications of the Supreme Court judgment in the Waya case in situations considered to be analogous to restoration of property to the loser are still being worked through in courts up and down England & Wales.  I expect to return to this subject in a future blog article.  I have already written about the parallel issue of the making of both confiscation and compensation orders in respect of the same benefit (‘Confiscation and compensation – double trouble?‘).

But there is another issue arising which as yet has not been addressed, as far as I am aware, either by the courts or by Parliament.

Where a confiscation order is limited by the defendant’s ‘available amount’ it is an order in that amount which the court has to consider proportionate or disproportionate.  If an order in the sum of the ‘available amount’ is proportionate it may still be the case that an order based on the amount of the defendant’s ‘benefit’ would have been disproportionate.

If and when the prosecution seeks a variation of the original confiscation order under s22, perhaps because the defendant has acquired further assets since the date of the original order, the Crown Court will again be obliged not to infringe A1P1.  In consequence the Crown Court on hearing an application under s22 will be required to consider whether the variation it plans to make to the original confiscation order would make the revised order disproportionate.  That will involve careful consideration of the original benefit and any restoration of that benefit to the loser, as well as consideration afresh of the defendant’s current ‘available amount’.  Ultimately under s22(4)(a) the court is obliged to amend the amount required to be paid to such amount as “it believes is just”.  I have written previously on the subject of s22 (‘PoCA section 22 – unfit for purpose?‘).

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales.  There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s confiscation proceedings in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this.  Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Confiscation & compensation – double trouble?

doppelgangerFor some years courts have wrestled with the issue of compensation & confiscation.  Should the Crown Court make both a compensation order (in favour of the victim of the crime) & a confiscation order (effectively in favour of the Crown) in respect of the same benefit obtained by a convicted defendant?

The Court of Appeal recently considered the issue again in the case of Davenport v R [2015] EWCA Crim 1731.

 

Statute law

The power to make a compensation order in the Crown Court derives from s130 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.  The power to make a confiscation order in the Crown Court derives from s6 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.  The legislation clearly envisages that the Crown Court may make both a compensation order and a confiscation order when dealing with an offence.

In particular s13 PoCA 2002 (as amended by s6 Serious Crime Act 2015 with effect from 1 June 2015) defines a “priority order” in subsection (3A) to include a compensation order and sets out what the court is to do where a court is making both a confiscation order and one or more priority orders against the same person in the same proceedings and the court believes the person will not have sufficient means to satisfy all of those orders in full.

In these circumstances the court must direct that so much of the amount payable under the priority order(s) as it specifies is to be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order; and the amount it specifies must be the amount it believes will not be recoverable because of the insufficiency of the person’s means, subsection (6).

The other types of priority order now identified in subsection (3A) include a surcharge order under s161A Criminal Justice Act 2003, an unlawful profit order under s4 Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013 and a forfeiture order under s23 or s23A Terrorism Act 2000.  It is anticipated that a slavery and trafficking reparation order under s8 Modern Slavery Act 2015 will be added to the list of priority orders in due course.

 

Case Law

The Court of Appeal have considered the making of both compensation orders and confiscation orders against the same person in the same proceedings in the cases of Jawad v R [2013] EWCA Crim 644 and of Davenport v R [2015] EWCA Crim 1731.  Both of these judgments post-date the UK Supreme Court decision in the case of R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51 which highlighted the importance of proportionality in the making of confiscation orders and resulted in the amendment to s6(5)(b) PoCA 2002.

 

The issue

The problem is that whilst the statute law makes clear that it is possible for the court to make a compensation order and a confiscation order against the same person in the same proceedings – and sets out what the court should do if the offender cannot pay both orders in full, the statute gives no guidance as to what the court should do if the offender can pay both.

Since the decision in Waya and the amendment to s6(5)(b) would it now be disproportionate, and therefore wrong, for the court to make a compensation order and a confiscation order in respect of the same benefit obtained from the same offence against an offender who appears to be in a position in which he can pay both?

This was the question addressed in Jawad and in Davenport.

The Court of Appeal considered in Jawad that it generally will be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay for a second time money which he has fully restored to the loser – and an order for a lesser sum which excludes the double counting ought generally to be the right order.  What will bring disproportion, said the Court, is the certainty of double payment.  If it remains uncertain whether the loser will be repaid, a POCA confiscation order which includes the sum in question (and therefore requires the same benefit to be recovered twice – by compensation & confiscation orders) will not ordinarily be disproportionate, concluded the Court of Appeal.

In Davenport the Court of Appeal appears to have taken a slightly more relaxed approach.  It held that mathematical certainty of restitution is not required.  The court should approach matters in a practical and realistic way in deciding whether restitution is assured.  Restitution to the victims in the future is capable of being properly assessed as assured, depending on the particular circumstances, notwithstanding that such restitution will not be immediate, or almost immediate, at the time of the confiscation hearing.  Obviously the longer the time frame the greater force there will be to an argument that restitution is not assured: but a prospective period of delay in realisation is not of itself necessarily a conclusive reason for proceeding to make a combination of such orders without adjusting the amount of the confiscation order.

Whilst a defendant who is truly intent on making restitution in full to his victims ordinarily should be expected to have arranged such restitution prior to the date of the confiscation hearing there may sometimes be cases where that is not possible.  If, in such a case, the court has firm and evidence-based grounds for believing that restitution may nevertheless be forthcoming, albeit that cannot be taken as “assured” at the time of the hearing, the court has power in its discretion to order an adjournment to enable matters to be ascertained.

But, said the Court of Appeal, each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales.  There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s confiscation proceedings in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this.  Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Section 330 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

ER 1 sigSection 330 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires persons working in the ‘regulated sector’ to report their suspicions of money laundering by others, subject to certain exceptions.

The ‘regulated sector’ is defined by Schedule 9 PoCA 2002, as amended.  The most significant amendment to Schedule 9 was made by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Business in the Regulated Sector & Supervisory Authorities) Order 2007 which entirely replaced Parts 1 & 2 of the originally enacted schedule.  There have been a number of more minor amendments to the extent of the ‘regulated sector’ subsequently.

But s330 itself has been subject to important amendments on a number of occasions, not only has the original text been amended but six entirely new subsections have been added.  In consequence there is not, as far as I am aware, an up to date copy of s330 freely available on the internet.

I set out below my understanding of the current wording of s330 at the time of writing (November 2015).

 

Section 330 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Failure to disclose: regulated sector

(1)     A person commits an offence if the conditions in subsections (2) to (4) are satisfied.

(2)     The first condition is that he –

    • (a) knows or suspects, or
    • (b) has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting,

that another person is engaged in money laundering.

(3)     The second condition is that the information or other matter –

    • (a) on which his knowledge or suspicion is based, or
    • (b) which gives reasonable grounds for such knowledge or suspicion,

came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector.

(3A)  The third condition is –

    • (a) that he can identify the other person mentioned in subsection (2) or the whereabouts of any of the laundered property, or
    • (b) that he believes, or it is reasonable to expect him to believe, that the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3) will or may assist in identifying that other person or the whereabouts of any of the laundered property.

(4)     The fourth condition is that he does not make the required disclosure to –

    • (a) a nominated officer, or
    • (b) a person authorised for the purposes of the Part by the Director General of the National Crime Agency,

as soon as is practicable after the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3) comes to him.

(5)     The required disclosure is a disclosure of –

    • (a) the identity of the other person mentioned in subsection (2), if he knows it,
    • (b) the whereabouts of the laundered property, so far as he knows it, and
    • (c) the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3).

(5A)   The laundered property is the property forming the subject-matter of the money laundering that he knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that other person to be engaged in.

(6)     But he does not commit an offence under this section if –

    • (a) he has a reasonable excuse for not making the required disclosure,
    • (b) he is a professional legal adviser or relevant professional adviser and –
      • (i) if he knows either of the things mentioned in subsection (5)(a) and (b), he knows the thing because of information or other matter that came to him in privileged circumstances, or
      • (ii) the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3) came to him in privileged circumstances, or
    • (c) subsection (7) or (7B) applies to him.

(7)     This subsection applies to a person if –

    • (a) he does not know or suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering, and
    • (b) he has not been provided by his employer with such training as is specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section.

(7A)    Nor does a person commit an offence under this section if –

    • (a) he knows, or believes on reasonable grounds, that money laundering is occurring in a particular country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
    • (b) the money laundering –
      • (i) is not unlawful under the criminal law applying in that country or territory, and
      • (ii) is not of a description prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(7B)   This subsection applies to a person if –

    • (a) he is employed by, or is in partnership with, a professional legal adviser or a relevant professional adviser to provide the adviser with assistance or support,
    • (b) the information or other matter mentioned in subsection (3) comes to the person in connection with the provision of such assistance or support, and
    • (c) the information or other matter came to the adviser in privileged circumstances.

(8)     In deciding whether a person committed an offence under this section the court must consider whether he followed any relevant guidance which was at the time concerned –

    • (a) issued by a supervisory authority or other appropriate body,
    • (b) approved by the Treasury, and
    • (c) published in a manner it approved as appropriate in its opinion to bring the guidance to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

(9)     A disclosure to a nominated officer is a disclosure which –

    • (a) is made to a person nominated by the alleged offender’s employer to receive disclosures under this section, and
    • (b) is made in the course of the alleged offender’s employment.

(9A)   But a disclosure which satisfies paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (9) is not to be taken as a disclosure to a nominated officer if the person making the disclosure –

    • (a) is a professional legal adviser or relevant professional adviser,
    • (b) makes it for the purpose of obtaining advice about making a disclosure under this section, and
    • (c) does not intend it to be a disclosure under this section.

(10)   Information or other matter comes to a professional legal adviser or relevant professional adviser in privileged circumstances if it is communicated or given to him –

    • (a) by (or by a representative of) a client of his in connection with the giving by the adviser of legal advice to the client,
    • (b) by (or by a representative of) a person seeking legal advice from the adviser, or
    • (c) by a person in connection with legal proceedings or contemplated legal proceedings.

(11)   But subsection (10) does not apply to information or other matter which is communicated or given with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.

(12)   Schedule 9 has effect for the purpose of determining what is –

    • (a) a business in the regulated sector;
    • (b) a supervisory authority.

(13)   An appropriate body is any body which regulates or is representative of any trade, profession, business or employment carried on by the alleged offender.

(14)   A relevant professional adviser is an accountant, auditor or tax adviser who is a member of a professional body which is established for accountants, auditors or tax advisers (as the case may be) and which makes provision for –

    • (a) testing the competence of those seeking admission to membership of such a body as a condition for such admission; and
    • (b) imposing and maintaining professional and ethical standards for its members, as well as imposing sanctions for non-compliance with those standards.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to the provisions of Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales.  There are a number of issues which could be relevant to obligations or proceedings under these provisions in particular circumstances which it is not possible to deal with in an article such as this.  Appropriate professional or legal advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Expert evidence – updated Part 19 Criminal Procedure Rules 2015

(c) FreeFoto.comPart 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 dealing with expert evidence in Crown Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in England & Wales has been updated with effect from 5 October 2015. For convenience the new materials are brought together in a single document here.

The Criminal Procedure Rules are in future to be referred to by the abbreviation CrimPR to distinguish them from the Civil Procedure Rules, see new rule 2.3.(2).

 

Expert evidence – guide to the amendments to the Rules

Part 19 (Expert evidence) is amended to include a new rule about an expert witness’ obligations to the court.  At the same time the Criminal Procedure Rules as a whole have been rearranged – the new Part 19 dealing with expert evidence previously appeared as Part 33 of the 2014 edition of the rules.

Rule 19.2 (Expert evidence; Expert’s duty to the court) now requires an expert witness, as part of her or his duty to the court, to help the court in some of the same ways as a party to the case, by complying with directions (for example, as to the time by when a report must be served), and by warning the court of any significant failure to act as required by a direction (for example, by warning of substantial delay in the preparation of a report).

In response to observations by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in R v Reynolds, R v Rosser [2014] EWCA Crim 2205, and in response to reports by Rule Committee members of increasing difficulties in obtaining expert reports within the same times as before, the Committee agreed that an expert’s implicit duty to the court to give a realistic estimate of the time within which expert evidence can be prepared, and to adhere to that estimate, should be made explicit.

 

Expert evidence – the Rules as amended

When this part applies
19.1.
(1) This Part applies where a party wants to introduce expert opinion evidence.

(2) A reference to an ‘expert’ in this Part is a reference to a person who is required to give or prepare expert evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings, including evidence required to determine fitness to plead or for the purpose of sentencing.

Expert’s duty to the court

19.2.

(1) An expert must help the court to achieve the overriding objective —

    (a) by giving opinion which is —
      (i) objective and unbiased; and
      (ii) within the expert’s area or areas of expertise; and
    (b) by actively assisting the court in fulfilling its duty of case management under rule 3.2, in particular by —
      (i) complying with directions made by the court, and
      (ii) at once informing the court of any significant failure (by the expert or another) to take any step required by such a direction.

(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom the expert receives instructions or by whom the expert is paid.

(3) This duty includes obligations —

    (a) to define the expert’s area or areas of expertise —

      (i) in the expert’s report, and
      (ii) when giving evidence in person;
    (b) when giving evidence in person, to draw the court’s attention to any question to which the answer would be outside the expert’s area or areas of expertise; and
    (c) to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement.

Introduction of expert evidence

19.3.
(1) A party who wants another party to admit as fact a summary of an expert’s conclusions must serve that summary —

    (a) on the court officer and on each party from whom that admission is sought;
    (b) as soon as practicable after the defendant whom it affects pleads not guilty.

(2) A party on whom such a summary is served must —

    (a) serve a response stating —
      (i) which, if any, of the expert’s conclusions are admitted as fact, and
      (ii) where a conclusion is not admitted, what are the disputed issues concerning that conclusion; and
    (b) serve the response —
      (i) on the court officer and on the party who served the summary,
      (ii) as soon as practicable, and in any event not more than 14 days after service of the summary.

(3) A party who wants to introduce expert evidence otherwise than as admitted fact must —

    (a) serve a report by the expert which complies with rule 19.4 (Content of expert’s report) on —
      (i) the court officer, and
      (ii) each other party;
    (b) serve the report as soon as practicable, and in any event with any application in support of which that party relies on that evidence;
    (c) serve with the report notice of anything of which the party serving it is aware which might reasonably be thought capable of detracting substantially from the credibility of that expert;
    (d) if another party so requires, give that party a copy of, or a reasonable opportunity to inspect —
      (i) a record of any examination, measurement, test or experiment on which the expert’s findings and opinion are based, or that were carried out in the course of reaching those findings and opinion, and
      (ii) anything on which any such examination, measurement, test or experiment was carried out.

(4) Unless the parties otherwise agree or the court directs, a party may not —

    (a) introduce expert evidence if that party has not complied with paragraph (3);
    (b) introduce in evidence an expert report if the expert does not give evidence in person.

Content of expert’s report

19.4.
Where rule 19.3(3) applies, an expert’s report must —

    (a) give details of the expert’s qualifications, relevant experience and accreditation;
    (b) give details of any literature or other information which the expert has relied on in making the report;
    (c) contain a statement setting out the substance of all facts given to the expert which are material to the opinions expressed in the report, or upon which those opinions are based;
    (d) make clear which of the facts stated in the report are within the expert’s own knowledge;
    (e) say who carried out any examination, measurement, test or experiment which the expert has used for the report and —
      (i) give the qualifications, relevant experience and accreditation of that person,
      (ii) say whether or not the examination, measurement, test or experiment was carried out under the expert’s supervision, and
      (iii) summarise the findings on which the expert relies;
    (f) where there is a range of opinion on the matters dealt with in the report —
      (i) summarise the range of opinion, and
      (ii) give reasons for the expert’s own opinion;
    (g) if the expert is not able to give an opinion without qualification, state the qualification;
    (h) include such information as the court may need to decide whether the expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence;
    (i) contain a summary of the conclusions reached;
    (j) contain a statement that the expert understands an expert’s duty to the court, and has complied and will continue to comply with that duty; and
    (k) contain the same declaration of truth as a witness statement.

Expert to be informed of service of report

19.5.
A party who serves on another party or on the court a report by an expert must, at once, inform that expert of that fact.

Pre-hearing discussion of expert evidence

19.6.
(1) This rule applies where more than one party wants to introduce expert evidence.

(2) The court may direct the experts to —

    (a) discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and
    (b) prepare a statement for the court of the matters on which they agree and disagree, giving their reasons.

(3) Except for that statement, the content of that discussion must not be referred to without the court’s permission.

(4) A party may not introduce expert evidence without the court’s permission if the expert has not complied with a direction under this rule.

Court’s power to direct that evidence is to be given by a single joint expert

19.7.
(1) Where more than one defendant wants to introduce expert evidence on an issue at trial, the court may direct that the evidence on that issue is to be given by one expert only.

(2) Where the co-defendants cannot agree who should be the expert, the court may —

    (a) select the expert from a list prepared or identified by them; or
    (b) direct that the expert be selected in another way.

Instructions to a single joint expert

19.8.
(1) Where the court gives a direction under rule 19.7 for a single joint expert to be used, each of the co-defendants may give instructions to the expert.

(2) A co-defendant who gives instructions to the expert must, at the same time, send a copy of the instructions to each other co-defendant.

(3) The court may give directions about —

    (a) the payment of the expert’s fees and expenses; and
    (b) any examination, measurement, test or experiment which the expert wishes to carry out.

(4) The court may, before an expert is instructed, limit the amount that can be paid by way of fees and expenses to the expert.

(5) Unless the court otherwise directs, the instructing co-defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the expert’s fees and expenses.

Court’s power to vary requirements under this Part

19.9.
(1) The court may extend (even after it has expired) a time limit under this Part.

(2) A party who wants an extension of time must —

    (a) apply when serving the report, summary or notice for which it is required; and
    (b) explain the delay.

 

Expert evidence – the Practice Direction

19A.1 Expert opinion evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings at common law if, in summary, (i) it is relevant to a matter in issue in the proceedings; (ii) it is needed to provide the court with information likely to be outside the court’s own knowledge and experience; and (iii) the witness is competent to give that opinion.

19A.2 Legislation relevant to the introduction and admissibility of such evidence includes section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provides that an expert report shall be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings whether or not the person making it gives oral evidence, but that if he or she does not give oral evidence then the report is admissible only with the leave of the court; and CrimPR Part 19, which in exercise of the powers conferred by section 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and section 20 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires the service of expert evidence in advance of trial in the terms required by those rules.

19A.3 In the Law Commission report entitled ‘Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales’, report number 325, published in March, 2011, the Commission recommended a statutory test for the admissibility of expert evidence. However, in its response the government declined to legislate. The common law, therefore, remains the source of the criteria by reference to which the court must assess the admissibility and weight of such evidence; and CrimPR 19.4 lists those matters with which an expert’s report must deal, so that the court can conduct an adequate such assessment.

19A.4 In its judgment in R v Dlugosz and Others [2013] EWCA Crim 2, the Court of Appeal observed (at paragraph 11): “It is essential to recall the principle which is applicable, namely in determining the issue of admissibility, the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the evidence to be admitted. If there is then the court leaves the opposing views to be tested before the jury.” Nothing at common law precludes assessment by the court of the reliability of an expert opinion by reference to substantially similar factors to those the Law Commission recommended as conditions of admissibility, and courts are encouraged actively to enquire into such factors.

19A.5 Therefore factors which the court may take into account in determining the reliability of expert opinion, and especially of expert scientific opinion, include:

    (a) the extent and quality of the data on which the expert’s opinion is based, and the validity of the methods by which they were obtained;
    (b) if the expert’s opinion relies on an inference from any findings, whether the opinion properly explains how safe or unsafe the inference is (whether by reference to statistical significance or in other appropriate terms);
    (c) if the expert’s opinion relies on the results of the use of any method (for instance, a test, measurement or survey), whether the opinion takes proper account of matters, such as the degree of precision or margin of uncertainty, affecting the accuracy or reliability of those results;
    (d) the extent to which any material upon which the expert’s opinion is based has been reviewed by others with relevant expertise (for instance, in peer-reviewed publications), and the views of those others on that material;
    (e) the extent to which the expert’s opinion is based on material falling outside the expert’s own field of expertise;
    (f) the completeness of the information which was available to the expert, and whether the expert took account of all relevant information in arriving at the opinion (including information as to the context of any facts to which the opinion relates);
    (g) if there is a range of expert opinion on the matter in question, where in the range the expert’s own opinion lies and whether the expert’s preference has been properly explained; and
    (h) whether the expert’s methods followed established practice in the field and, if they did not, whether the reason for the divergence has been properly explained.

19A.6 In addition, in considering reliability, and especially the reliability of expert scientific opinion, the court should be astute to identify potential flaws in such opinion which detract from its reliability, such as:

    (a) being based on a hypothesis which has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny (including, where appropriate, experimental or other testing), or which has failed to stand up to scrutiny;
    (b) being based on an unjustifiable assumption;
    (c) being based on flawed data;
    (d) relying on an examination, technique, method or process which was not properly carried out or applied, or was not appropriate for use in the particular case; or
    (e) relying on an inference or conclusion which has not been properly reached.

NOTE: A previous article dealing with the 2014 revisions to the Criminal Procedure Rules can be found HERE.

S10A PoCA 2002 determinations – appeals & reconsideration

Scales of justiceOnce the Crown Court has made a ‘determination’ for the purposes of confiscation of the extent of a convicted defendant’s interest in an asset can that ‘determination’ be altered on an appeal or reconsideration?

The short answer is ‘Yes’.  A previous article ‘Crown Court section 10A determinations in confiscation‘ considered the new power to make a ‘determination’ introduced by s1 Serious Crime Act 2015 which inserted new s10A into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

This article goes on to consider appeal & reconsideration of s10A determinations.

 

Appeal

A s10A determination may be appealed either by the prosecutor or by a person whom the Court of Appeal thinks is or may be a person holding an interest in the asset in question, but different eligibility rules apply, see s3 SCA 2015.

Whoever wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal will not be permitted to do so where a receiver has already been appointed under s50 PoCA 2002, or where the Court of Appeal believes that an application is to be made by the prosecutor for the appointment of a receiver, or where such an application has been made but has not yet been determined.

In addition where the intended appeal is to be made by a person who claims to hold an interest in the asset the appeal must be on the basis that either the person was not given a reasonable opportunity to make representations when the determination was made, or that giving effect to the determination would result in a serious risk of injustice to that person, or both.

But what is meant by “a serious risk of injustice”?  I would suggest that this is not restricted to a risk of serious injustice – what is serious is the risk, not the injustice.  When considering the meaning of the same phrase in earlier confiscation legislation the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Benjafield [2000] EWCA Crim 86 held, at paragraph [41.4]: “any real as opposed to a fanciful risk of injustice can be appropriately described as serious”.

It is doubtful whether an error which had an insignificant impact on the outcome would be regarded as creating an “injustice”.  However it may prove to be the case that the need to show “a serious risk of injustice” will not be an especially difficult hurdle for a potential appellant.

On hearing an appeal against a determination the Court of Appeal may confirm the determination, or make such order as it believes is appropriate.  The decision of the Court of Appeal may be further appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

Reconsideration in the Crown Court

When the Crown Court is appointing a receiver under s50 it may confer various powers upon the receiver including (but not limited to) power to manage or realise any realisable assets, and the court may may order a person holding an interest in a realisable asset to make payment to the receiver in respect of a beneficial interest in that asset held by the convicted defendant or the recipient of a tainted gift, see s51(2) & (6).

Where a s10A determination in respect of an asset has not previously been made the Crown Court must not exercise those powers without giving any person holding an interest in the asset a reasonable opportunity to make representations to it, s51(8).

Where a s10A determination in respect of an asset has previously been made that will bind the Crown Court when appointing the receiver, unless the Crown Court finds on an application by a person holding an interest in the asset that either the person was not given a reasonable opportunity to make representations when the determination was made and has not appealed against the determination, or that giving effect to the determination would result in a serious risk of injustice to that person, or both – see s51(8B) inserted by s4 SCA 2015.

The effect therefore is that the s10A determination can be undone by the Crown Court when it is appointing a receiver (unless that determination has already been subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal).

 

The combined effect

The combined effect of these provisions is that a person with an interest in the asset will have an opportunity either to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination or an opportunity to ask the Crown Court to reconsider the determination (but cannot do both).

In either case the person with the interest will have to satisfy the court that either he was not given a reasonable opportunity to make representations when the determination was made, or that giving effect to the determination would result in a serious risk of injustice to him, or both.

He will need to do that on or before the appointment of a receiver under s50.

It remains the case that the powers of the receiver must be exercised with a view to allowing a person other than the defendant or a recipient of a tainted gift to retain or recover the value of any interest held by him, see s69(3)(a).

A s10A determination is a determination of the defendant’s interest in the asset rather than a determination of the interests of others but clearly has a relevance to issues arising under s69(3)(a).

 

Conclusion

The existence of these opportunities to challenge the previous ‘conclusive’ s10A determination may be thought to go a long way to nullify the perceived attractions of inviting the Crown Court to make a s10A PoCA 2002 determination when making a confiscation order.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales. There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s confiscation proceedings in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this. Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Crown Court s10A determinations in confiscation

Crown Court judgeThe Serious Crime Act 2015 has introduced a new power enabling a Crown Court judge when making a confiscation order to make a “determination” of the extent of the defendant’s interest in any property which is likely to be used to satisfy the order.

In other words, where more than one person has an interest in the property the judge may ‘determine’ what proportion of the property belongs to the defendant at the time the confiscation order is made.

That determination will then, subject to limited exceptions, be conclusive in further proceedings taken with a view to satisfying the order.

The objective of such a “determination” under the new s10A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 appears to be to facilitate the enforcement of confiscation orders by a conclusive ruling at the time the confiscation order is made on competing interests in assets which might need to be realised to satisfy the order.  Previously such matters would not be resolved until a later stage – when enforcement proceedings against the defendant’s assets were underway.

But it remains open to the judge to make a confiscation order without making any “determination” – in other words to do precisely what he would have done before s10A was introduced.  It is envisaged that in many cases that is exactly what will happen.

 

The new law

The new law, which came into effect on 1 June 2015, is to be found in sections 1 – 4 Serious Crime Act 2015.

Section 1 is the key provision, inserting a new s10A into PoCA 2002 setting into law the power to make a “determination” and the requirement that, before doing so, the court must give any “interested person” (meaning any third party whom the court thinks has, or may have, an interest in the property) a reasonable opportunity to make representations to it.

So where a judge is considering making a “determination” an “interested person” can be represented at the confiscation hearing, which is a new development in confiscation law.

As always in confiscation law, “property” means an asset of any description – not just land & buildings.

Section 2 deals with the provision of information to the court by the defendant (amending s18 PoCA 2002), the prosecutor (amending s16) and the interested person (inserting a new s18A).

Sections 3 & 4 deal with appeals & reconsideration.  I deal with those aspects in ‘S10A PoCA 2002 determinations – appeals & reconsideration‘.

 

How is it supposed to work?

The idea is that when a convicted defendant is first required by a s18 order to provide information to the court for the purposes of confiscation proceedings he may also be required to provide information which would be relevant to a potential s10A determination.  In other words he may be required to set out his assertions concerning the extent to which he is interested in assets in which he has a less than 100% interest.  Presumably the court would wish at that stage also to be provided with the identities of any “interested persons”.

The court may at any stage require an “interested person” to provide information to it.  New s18A enables the court to place upon an “interested person” similar obligations to those placed on a defendant under s18 – and with the same danger that where an “interested person” fails to comply with the court order the court may draw appropriate inferences.

The prosecutor is required to include in his s16 statement any information known to him which he believes is relevant to a possible s10A determination.  This appears to be a mandatory requirement applying to all s16 statements issued after 1 June 2015.

Although there are no changes to s17, a defendant would be unwise not to respond to any relevant assertions in the prosecutor’s s16 statement with which he did not agree because his silence may be taken for agreement.

Prior to the confiscation hearing if the court was contemplating making a s10A determination any “interested persons” would need to be notified of the hearing to enable them to be represented at it.  (However it is far from clear whether any legal aid funding would be available to an “interested person” who wished to obtain legal advice or instruct a legal representative to appear at the hearing.)

At the conclusion of the confiscation hearing the court could make not only a confiscation order but also a s10A determination of the defendant’s interests in specified assets (i.e. the proportion of each asset which belonged to the defendant).

If the confiscation order was not satisfied & matters proceeded to enforcement then, subject to the provisions relating to appeals and reconsideration already mentioned, enforcement could then proceed on the basis of the defendant’s interests in those assets as had been determined.

 

A fictional case study

To better understand the issues let us consider a fictional case study.

Norman & Monica have been married for ten years & have two school age children.  They jointly own their matrimonial home (as joint tenants) subject to a building society mortgage (also in joint names).  They purchased their current home, Rose Cottage, 3 years ago.

Norman also owns a ‘buy to let’ property, Rainbow’s End, which is occupied by students at the local university.  Norman bought the property 5 years ago in his sole name with the help of a secured bank loan (also in his sole name).  Norman declares all the rents received from Rainbow’s End on his personal income tax returns.

Norman was recently convicted in connection with a drug trafficking conspiracy & is now subject to confiscation on the basis of a ‘criminal lifestyle’.  The figure of his ‘benefit’ is undoubtedly going to be very large so the confiscation order will be limited by his ‘available amount’.

Norman’s ‘available amount’ will include his interests in Rose Cottage & Rainbow’s End.  In relation to any s10A determination which the judge may be considering making in regard to those properties the “interested persons” appear to be Monica, the building society & the bank.

If the court is considering making a s10A determination it may issue s18A orders requiring Monica, the building society & the bank to supply information & must give each of them an opportunity to make representations to it.

In practice the interests of the commercial lenders are likely to be uncontroversial & it is unlikely that they will wish to be represented at the confiscation hearing.  However there is a danger that the interests of the lenders in the properties may change between the date the confiscation order is made & the date the order is enforced.  The new legislation does not appear to be designed to accommodate that possibility, particularly as the legislation refers to the defendant’s interest as a proportion of the value of the property itself, s10A(5).

An alternative approach might be for the court to define the ‘property’ to be dealt with by the determination as ‘Norman & Monica’s interests in Rose Cottage & Rainbow’s End’.  That may enable some potential complications to be side-stepped but arguably would run counter to the natural meaning of the wording of s10A.  Another option may be for the court to give a rather wide meaning to the word “proportion” in this context.

For the purposes of a s10A determination the court would then need to reach a conclusion as to whether Monica had any interest in the ‘buy to let’ property Rainbow’s End.  That might depend upon whether Rainbow’s End was regarded as ‘matrimonial property’ in the sense that term is understood in the Family Court.

As a quite separate matter the Crown Court would have to consider, in the context of deciding Norman’s ‘available amount’, whether Norman had made any ‘tainted gifts’.  It is possible that any interest Monica had in Rose Cottage and / or Rainbow’s End might be considered to have arisen by ‘tainted gift’ from Norman (which would mean that his ‘available amount’ would need to include the current value of the interest gifted by him & still held by Monica).

Suppose the Crown Court made a s10A determination that Norman had a 100% interest in Rainbow’s End, subject only to the interest of the bank as secured lender.  If Monica & Norman were later to divorce would the Family Court be able to take account of the value of Rainbow’s End in the divorce settlement?  Could it do so on the basis that, contrary to to the s10A determination in the Crown Court, Monica did have an interest in the property – whilst at the same time recognising Norman’s obligations under his confiscation order?

In such a case the Crown Court judge might consider the better course would be to decline to make any “determination” under s10A, leaving matters to be resolved if necessary in enforcement proceedings.  Indeed even when legislating the government envisaged that the Crown Court would only make s10A determinations in relatively straightforward cases.

 

Transitional provisions

There appear to be no relevant express transitional provisions in the Serious Crime Act 2015 or the commencement order.  However the practicalities are that a s10A determination cannot be made unless the “interested persons” have been identified & notified of the intention to make a “determination”.

For that reason, although the law came into effect on 1 June 2015, courts are unlikely to be making any s10A determinations just yet.

However I would suggest that all prosecutor’s s16 statements should now contain the information required by new subsection 16(6A) inserted by s2 Serious Crime Act 2015.

 

What will actually happen?

As yet I have detected no enthusiasm on the part of prosecutors for inviting the Crown Courts to make s10A determinations.  This may be because of the extra complexity that this would bring to the proceedings involved in obtaining a confiscation order.

It remains to be seen whether, in the event, this new power is employed often in practice or left to gather dust in the statute book.

 

Contacting us

Our contact details are here.

David

(Note: This article applies to confiscation proceedings under the provisions of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in England and Wales. There are a number of additional issues which could be relevant to a defendant’s confiscation proceedings in particular cases which it is not possible to deal with in a relatively short article such as this. Appropriate professional advice should be sought in each individual case.)

Forensic accountant, expert witness, crime