Skip to main content

Confiscation


5.03.15

Poker ‘card marking’ cheat pleads guilty to fraud

On 27 February 2015, Mihai Lacatos, a 61 year old Romanian man, pleaded guilty to cheating casinos across the UK out of tens of thousands of pounds.  He was arrested in March 2014 and had attempted to flee the jurisdiction while on bail but was taken into custody after being traced at Luton Airport.   The sum…

Read more

5.11.14

Brett Wilson LLP civil fraud solicitors discuss a case where an innocent wife was unable to defeat claim for civil recovery order

In National Crime Agency v Azam (No 2) [2014] EWHC 3573 the High Court heard a defence to a claim for a civil recovery order over property in which the legal title was vested in Second Respondent – the ex-wife of the First Respondent against whom the Court at an earlier hearing had ruled such property…

Read more

1.10.14

£1 million in legal costs paid out of public funds to private prosecutor

In R (Virgin Media Ltd) v Zinga [2014] EWCA 1823 the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, was asked to consider the quantum of costs payable to the private prosecutor in connection with an appeal against a confiscation order. These costs are payable from the public purse out of ‘central funds’…

Read more

28.08.14

Enforcing confiscation beyond benefit disproportionate rules Supreme Court

In the conjoined appeals in the cases of Ahmad and another and Fields and others [2014] UKSC 36 the Supreme Court heard submissions from a stellar array of counsel. Tim Owen QC and Andrew Bodnar from Matrix appeared on behalf of Fields, Andrew Mitchell QC and Kennedy Talbot from 33 Chancery Lane appeared on behalf…

Read more

20.06.14

No bar to confiscation for absconders

In Charles Okedare [2014] EWCA 1173 the Appellant had absconded before his trial for conspiracy to defraud and following conviction in his absence the trial judge made a confiscation order against him in the sum of £29050.62 (amounting to half his interest in the matrimonial home). He appealed on the basis that the Court had…

Read more

CPS liable for Receiver's fees

The Supreme Court handed down judgment to conclude the Eastenders litigation on 8 May (Barnes v the Eastenders Group [2014] UKSC 26). In this case, a busy Crown Court judge had granted applications for restraint and receivership orders brought by the CPS which involved the piercing of the corporate veil of the respondent company whose…

Read more

12.02.14

CA guidance on disclosure in confiscation cases

In Onuigbo [2014] EWCA 65 the Court of Appeal was concerned with a confiscation order in the sum of £2.6m made following conviction for various money laundering offences arising out of fraudulent conduct in Nigeria which spanned a period of about 6 years prior to and after the enactment of POCA 2002. In fact, the…

Read more

11.02.14

CA warning to private prosecutors

In Virgin Media Ltd v Zinga [2014] EWCA 52 the Court of Appeal was faced with a fascinating conundrum. As has become increasingly common amongst media companies in particular, Virgin had brought a private prosecution against the Appellant who had been selling set top boxes with software to enable premium services. The Appellant was convicted…

Read more

20.12.13

Confiscation can carry on biting

Mr Padda (Padda 2013 EWCA 2330) discovered to his horror how his attempt to turn around his life by setting up a legitimate business led him back into the Crown Court for a re-consideration of his available amount. This case should provide a salutary warning about the ability of the prosecution to seek to satisfy…

Read more

25.07.13

stay of confiscation must be exceptional

In Beazley and Beazley [2013] EWCA 567 the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by the prosecution against a terminating ruling of a Recorder to stay confiscation proceedings. The defendants had been convicted of offences contrary to section 92 Trade Marks Act 1994. such offences are in fact ‘criminal lifestyle’ offences by virtue of their…

Read more

Legal Disclaimer

Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.