Practice Groups
POCA Proceedings, Restraint, Asset Forfeiture and Cash Seizures
It is often the case that the Proceeds of Crime Act comes into force when a person is prosecuted for serious fraud. Where this happens an investigation into the origin of a defendants assets will take place and, if they prove to be the proceeds from criminal enterprise, a Court may order confiscation of those assets associated with the proceeds of crime.
Our barristers have a fierce determination to provide the very best advice in relation to all POCA matters. We act on behalf of individuals at all stages of the criminal process, whether that be pre-charge or post-conviction during confiscation proceedings. We work closely with those that instruct us to ensure the best outcome in each of the following stages, but not limited to:
- Applying to set aside and/or varying restraint orders;
- Often before an individual is charged, a financial investigator may make an application for a restraint order. These orders are often obtained ex parte and can result in assets being frozen for several years. Members of Chambers provide expert services in applying to set aside such orders.
- Assisting in the drafting of responses to section 18 orders which often have a significant impact in any contested confiscation proceedings;
- Assisting in the drafting of the section 17 response;
- Our practitioners will challenge any unjustifiable benefit and any undue assertions made in relation to the purported amount still available to the defendant. The former is no less important given the current trend for investigators to apply to reconsider the amount available to the defendant.
- The conduct of the final confiscation hearing.
Examples of our work with the Proceeds of Crime Act include: -
R v C - VAT Fraud. Post-trial, Paul Simon, instructed for the defence, negotiated a half million pounds reduction in available assets sought by the Crown in the subsequent confiscation proceedings.
R v I – Charles Austin-Groome represented a defendant who faced confiscation proceedings involving an international smuggling fraud. The prosecution alleged a total benefit figure of £491,000, with the defendant having an available amount of £91,000. After legal argument and defence evidence, the defendant was found not to have held any interest in the smuggled goods and was ordered to pay a total of £1.
R v D – Feryal Ertan appeared for the Prosecution. A Confiscation Order with a Benefit Figure of £370,520 and Available Amount of £329,900 was ordered.
