Confiscation proceedings have become an increasingly popular tool for enforcement agencies, both when investigating and after successfully prosecuting a case.
They can be unpleasant and can have a severe impact on your day-to-day life and the lives of those around you. This is why we are on hand.
We use our legal ability and out-of-the-box thinking to do everything possible to lessen the effect confiscation proceedings can have. And, where possible, we will seek to have them dropped entirely.
Confiscation proceedings are brought following a conviction so that the authorities can take what they believe to be the benefit gained from that crime. Anyone that is subject to such proceedings needs representation from lawyers with in-depth experience of what is a challenging and changing area of law.
We have a track record of successfully representing clients in such proceedings.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has rightly been described as draconian because of the powers it gives to the authorities and the limitations it places on individuals.
But we have proved that the authorities are not infallible when it comes to confiscation proceedings and that an intelligent, robust approach can bring success, no matter how daunting the challenge may initially appear.
As experts in this area of law, Rahman Ravelli will work with you to ensure that confiscation is never a foregone conclusion.
A confiscation order is an order made by a Crown Court following a criminal conviction. It requires the defendant to pay a sum of money that representis the benefit they obtained from their criminal conduct. Confiscation proceedings are governed by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The purpose is to deprive convicted defendants of the financial gains from crime and to deter future offending.
A confiscation order can be made after conviction for any criminal offence where the prosecution applies for one, or where the court decides on its own initiative to proceed. The court must first determine whether the defendant has a 'criminal lifestyle' (in which case the general criminal lifestyle assumptions apply) or whether they have simply benefited from particular criminal conduct. The benefit figure is assessed broadly and can include the full value of assets handled, not just the net profit from the offence.
Under POCA, benefit is the total value of property obtained or services secured as a result of or in connection with the criminal conduct. In criminal lifestyle cases, the court applies statutory assumptions that widen the scope considerably — any property held in the six years before proceedings began, any property transferred to the defendant, and any expenditure during that period can be treated as the benefit of crime unless the defendant can rebut the assumption.
The benefit figure is the gross value of what was obtained through criminal conduct. In "criminal lifestyle" cases, this can encompass all assets and expenditures over a six-year period. The available amount is the court's assessment of the total value of assets currently available to the defendant. The court will assume that the available amount is equal to the benefit figure, unless the defendant can prove otherwise. If the defendant successfully demonstrates their available assets are less than the calculated benefit, the confiscation order will be reduced to match the available amount.
Failure to pay a confiscation order within the time set by the court can lead to prison time for the defendant. If the court finds the defendant guilty of willful refusal or deliberate neglect in filing to pay the confiscation order, the court can activate the default prison term, that was set when the order was made. The defendant usually must serve half of the maximum default sentence, but if the debt exceeds £10 million the defendant will usually serve the whole prison term. Note that serving the default prison sentence does not extinguish the debt. The confiscation order remains enforceable and the state will continue to pursue enforcement action against any assets the defendant holds or acquires in the future. Interest also accrues on unpaid orders.
Yes. A confiscation order can be appealed to the Court of Appeal. There are three grounds on which a defendant can appeal. First, the appeal can be based on questions of law. Secondly, on the basis that the order is disproportionate. Thirdly, the order was based on a manifestly wrong assessment of benefit or the available amount. An order can also be varied either upward or downward. Third parties who claim a proprietary interest in assets subject to a confiscation order can also apply to have their interests recognised.
A restraint order is made before conviction — often at the outset of an investigation — to freeze assets and prevent a defendant from dissipating property that may later be subject to confiscation. Restraint orders are applied for by the prosecution and made by the Crown Court. They are a protective step designed to ensure that assets remain available to satisfy a confiscation order if a conviction follows. They can be challenged on various grounds and should be responded to with immediate legal advice.
Confiscation proceedings under POCA are technically demanding and can have serious consequences for the defendant. The statutory assumptions in criminal lifestyle cases can lead to disproportionate benefit figures if not properly challenged, and the rules on third-party interests require careful navigation. Experienced solicitors understand the mechanics of POCA in depth, can challenge inflated benefit assessments, protect the interests of family members and business partners, and pursue all available routes of appeal and variation.
