Confiscation Proceedings

This matter was the first of its kind in the United Kingdom which determined the issue of a Defendant having received a benefit in respect of confiscation proceedings as a result of keeping a domestic slave.

No such legal argument had been previously determined before any Crown Court or Higher Courts in the United Kingdom and this case was the first case in which the legal argument had been submitted.

This matter was extremely high profile and enjoyed a significant amount of media attention from the BBC and from other national and local press due to its unique background and the legal issues which were being determined. The case has been described as a ‘landmark’ case.

The Crown in their original section 16 statement submitted that the Defendant had benefited in excess of £1 million from the money laundering offence alone.  After the service of a detailed section 17 statement and after extensive negotiations with the Prosecution, we were successful in challenging the purported benefit obtained and it was accepted that his benefit from the offence was only £6,000 and his overall general criminal conduct was deemed to be only £75,945.71.  

The matter concluded in July 2022.

Following the service of the s.18 statement it was successfully demonstrated that the Crown should discontinue the confiscation proceedings.

The proceedings were discontinued in September 2022.

This matter was extremely high profile and included a documentary from Channel 4 called Busting the Drugs Millions: Inside the National Crime Agency due to its unique background and the value of money that was laundered.

The Prosecution alleged that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct in excess of £120 million and that he held ‘hidden assets’ to the same value of the benefit figure.

After the service of the Defendant’s extensive section 17 statements and other supporting work product, the Crown accepted that the Defendant’s available amount was only £54,000 (later reduced to £13,000 by a section 23 application in March 2019) and that the Defendant’s benefit from his general criminal conduct should be reduced by over £33 million.

Simon Connolly was the Solicitor who had day to day care and conduct in which the Prosecution sought a Confiscation Order in the sum of £197 million. However, upon the case being determined at a final hearing with various legal arguments being heard, an Order was eventually made in the sum of just over £106,000. The Confiscation Order was later reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Defendant was subject to confiscation proceedings following his conviction for money laundering offences to the value of £60 million. This was an operation conducted by HMRC. There are 18 related operations by HMRC dating back to 2006 involving the investigation of a number of organised crime groups for alcohol diversion fraud, money laundering, cigarette smuggling, importation and distribution of Class B controlled drugs and the purchase of real estate in Spain for the purposes of money laundering.

There were a number of highly complex issues involved including the calculation of benefit, apportionment of recoverable amounts, hidden assets, tainted gifts, disclosure, piercing the corporate veil and third party interests to name some of the features involved.

The confiscation case was very unusual and complex as it focussed on the unique set of circumstances of a Defendant having purportedly received benefit in respect of exploiting victims and forcing them to perform forced or compulsory labour. This matter was extremely high profile and enjoyed a significant amount of media attention from the BBC documentary programme called ‘The Prosecutors’ and from other national and local press due to its unique background and the legal issues which were being determined.

The Crown alleged that the Defendant’s benefit from his ‘General Criminal Conduct’ was £534,574.41. After the service of a detailed section 17 statement challenging the purported benefit obtained; the Crown later conceded that their original calculation was flawed and they later accepted that the Defendant’s benefit was only £150,000

It was the Crown’s contention in their section 16(3) statement that the Defendant had benefited in excess of £13 million from his general criminal conduct.

The Defendant’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £3,119,150.00 instead of the £13,252,330.16 which was submitted by the Crown in their section 16(3) statement thereby reducing any Order made by over £10 million.

Having received a custodial sentence for his involvement in the conspiracy, the Crown alleged that he had benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ in the sum of £441,000 and he had identifiable assets in excess of £106,000 and that he also had ‘hidden assets’. 

However, the Crown eventually accepted our legal submissions that the defendant’s benefit figure should only be £1,000 and not the £441,000 submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement.  As a consequence, a Confiscation Order was certified by the Court for the sum of £1,000.

The Crown alleged that AH had benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ in the sum of £4.8 million and that he held identifiable assets in excess of £2.3 million and that he also held ‘hidden assets’ abroad. 

However, the proceedings concluded by consent after the Crown accepted the Defence’s submissions that his benefit figure should be only £313,022.17. This is a reduction of over 93% of the Crown’s original benefit figure. Furthermore, the Order was subject to the R v Ahmed provisions which resulted in the Defendant paying back less than £200,000.

The Crown alleged the Defendant had benefited in excess of £3.8 million from his ‘general criminal conduct’ and held assets over £3.5 million including holding assets in Nigeria. However, after the service of the Defendant’s extensive section 17 statements and other supporting work product the Crown accepted that the Defendant had only benefited in the sum of £700,000.

The Prosecution submitted that the Defendant had benefited from his proceeds of crime in excess of some £2.3 million and had ‘hidden assets’ to the same value of the benefit figure. This case involved the process of laundering funds via the scheme of ‘cuckoo smurfing’. The Crown eventually accepted through the detailed legal submissions contained within the section 17 statement that the defendant’s benefit from the conviction was only £36,000 and not the £1.8 million as submitted in their original section 16(3) statement. 

The confiscation proceedings concluded by consent for just over £59,505.00 and the Crown also accepted that the Defendant did not have any ‘hidden assets’.

The Crown submitted that the Defendant was the lead conspirator in the supply and importation of a multi-million pound consignment of Class A drugs across Yorkshire. The Crown submitted that the Defendant’s ‘general criminal conduct’ was in excess of £1 million and he also held assets in the same sum. However, we were successful in illustrating to the Court and Crown that the defendant’s benefit figure should be reduced to only £170,179.68 and that he only had assets in the sum of £25,594.36. 

Following the service of the s.18 statement it was successfully demonstrated that the Crown should discontinue the confiscation proceedings. Notwithstanding, the significant role the Defendant had as a freight forwarder within the conspiracy.

The Crown contended that the Defendant’s benefit was in excess of £600,000 and that the Defendant had assets in the same amount.

Due to the legal submissions detailed in the Defendant’s section 17 statement, the Crown accepted the benefit figure should be reduced by some £300,000 and a nominal order of £1.00 should be paid.

The Crown contended that the Defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct was in excess of £814,000 and that the Defendant had assets in excess of £674,000.

However, after highlighting the deficiencies in the Crown’s approach, we were successful in demonstrating that the defendant’s benefit from his ‘general criminal conduct’ should be reduced to only £67,000 and that his assets totalled £89,452.00. As a result, an order was made in the lower sum (the benefit figure) for only £67,000.

The case related to the systematic ‘clocking’ of a significant number of motor vehicles for financial gain. The Prosecution alleged that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct in excess of £750,000 and that he held assets in excess of £37,000.

However, we were successful in demonstrating that the defendant’s benefit from his ‘general criminal conduct’ should be reduced to only £91,500 and we were successful in demonstrating that the Defendant’s available amount should be significantly reduced. As a result, an order was made for just over £14,000.

The contested confiscation hearing in relation to this matter lasted 9 days.

The Judge gave a written judgment on the matter and found the Defendant’s benefit figure to be only £284,432 instead of the original £409,980.00 which was submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement. Moreover, despite the Crown asserting during the contested hearing about the burden regarding ‘hidden assets’ the Judge found in favour of the submissions contained within the section 17 and found that the Defendant’s available amount was nil and therefore only a Confiscation Order in the sum of £1.00 was made against our client. 

As a result of the preparation we undertook in the case, the Crown eventually accepted the legal submissions contained within our s.17 statement and that the Defendant’s benefit figure should be reduced to £90,000 and not the £364,000 submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement thereby reducing the benefit figure by over 75%.

The Crown also submitted that the Defendant’s total known assets were over £258,507.80 with an interest in his partner’s property. It was later conceded by the Crown due to the evidence that we presented that his assets totalled only £72,529.93.

nstructed only after the Defendant was sentenced and confiscation proceedings had commenced.

Prior to instruction, the Crown asserted that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct and therefore submitted that the ‘statutory assumptions’ should be utilised.

However, upon considering legal submissions in the Defendant’s response statement, the Crown accepted that the benefit figure should be limited to only the Defendant’s particular criminal conduct or more commonly known as the benefit arising from the offence itself.

The focus then quickly switched to the Prosecution’s submissions relating to the assets held by the Defendant which involved assets (both property and bank accounts) being held abroad.

The Prosecution asserted in their first statement that the Defendant’s asset total was at least £380,000 and they also amended their position late in the proceedings to assert that the Defendant in fact had hidden assets which we had to try and demonstrate was false.

The Defendant owned a property in France and there was significant dispute regarding the valuation of the same between the parties.

The matter concluded on the 10th December 2019 and the Order was made for only £64,490.43.

The Prosecution served a section 16 statement which indicated that the Defendant had an interest in a property and that he had purposely misled the Court by not declaring this interest. This was a serious allegation that was made against the Defendant with there being severe consequences of a financial nature and potentially criminal proceedings that could follow if it was deemed to be correct.

As a result, it was of paramount importance that the true nature of the Defendant’s assets was presented. The Crown in their section 16 statement purported that his available assets was in excess of £70,000.

We were able to demonstrate through a mixture of legal arguments and documentary evidence served during the course of the proceedings that the Defendant’s interest in the property (house) was nil and an Order was subsequently made against the Defendant for only £250.00.

Following proceedings brought by Surrey Heath Borough Council both Mr K and Mr H pleaded guilty to offences relating to waste disposal, escape of waste, transfer of waste and operating a business otherwise than authorised under an environmental permit. According to the Prosecution, the Defendants carried out waste disposal and other activities following the issue of a stop notice.

Mr K’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £129,953 instead of the purported £223,669.48 which was submitted by the Prosecution in their section 16(3) statement. Mr K’s available amount was deemed to be £14,380.00.

Mr H’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £129,953 instead of the alleged £341,112.20. This is a reduction of over 60% of the overall benefit figure. Mr H’s available amount was deemed to be £86,350.00.