Andrew and Tristan Tate: Brothers made the subject of Account Forfeiture Orders

In a detailed first instance judgment dated 18 December 2024, District Judge Paul Goldspring made account forfeiture orders in connection with six bank accounts owned or controlled by the brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate. The Tate brothers did not provide any evidence to response to the applications with were made by Devon and Cornwall Police.

The evidence presented by the Applicant contended that the brothers had received revenue of approximately £21 million between 2014 and 2022 both in the UK and Romania, where they have been latterly resident, but that they had paid no tax on this revenue. The revenue was largely generated from the sale of pornographic content via various mediums over the internet. The Applicant’s case was put on both limbs namely: a) the money was the proceeds of unlawful conduct (tax evasion here and in Romania); and b) it was intended for use in unlawful conduct (money laundering).

The contention of the brothers, unsupported by evidence, was that the revenue was legitimately earned by them but if it was proven to be criminal property by virtue of the tax evasion, the only sum recoverable would be that pecuniary advantage (namely the sums due in tax and not the whole amounts).

District Judge Goldspring distinguished the case of Ahmed v Revenue and Customs [2013] EWHC 2241 in which it was held that the benefit obtained by a defendant cheating the revenue was the amount of tax underpaid. He did so by emphasising that Ahmed was a Limb a) case and by reference to section 340(3)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which reads:

(3) Property is criminal property if—

(a) it constitutes a person’s benefit from criminal conduct or it represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly).

In this case, the Applicant was asserting it had a right to recovery using both limbs. In the case of Sandhu v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2019] EWHC 3316 the Court held that cash seized was at least in part from unlawful conduct, and consequently applying the provisions of section 340(3)(a), the whole of it is criminal property and consequently and movement etc of it is money laundering and caught by sections 327 to 329 of the Act. This permits the Applicant to rely on limb (b) and obtain the forfeiture of the property on the basis that it is intended for use in crime and consequently obtain forfeiture of the whole of it even in circumstances where it could not be proven that all of the subject property was obtained through crime. This defeated the Tate brothers ‘pecuniary advantage’ argument and allowed the District Judge to make orders for the forfeiture of the balances in all the accounts and not just that portion which ought to have been paid in tax. The total sum subject to forfeiture was £2.8m.

There is a statutory right of appeal to the Crown Court against any decision to make a forfeiture order exercisable within 30 days.