Appointment of Receiver in UK Law

But It goes on to say (8) for the purposes of this section, an execution against goods shall be taken to be completed by seisure and sale, end an attachment of a debt shall be deemed to be completed by receipt of the debt, and an execution against land shall be deemed to be completed by seisure or by the appointment of a receiver"

"Execution where Judgment is given in any Action, that the Plaintiff Shall recover the Land, Debt, or Damages, as the Case is; and when any Writ is awarded to put him in Possession, or to do any other Thing whereby the Plaintiff should the better be satisfied his Debt or Damages, that is called a Write of Execution; and whenhe hath the Possession of the Land, or is paid the Debt or Damages, or hath the Body of the Defendant awarded to Prison, then he hath Execution", and the same meaning is to be found in Blackman v. Execution". And the same meaning is to be found in Blackman v. , 1892, S Chancery at page when Mr. Justice said that execution means the "process of law the enforcement of a Judgment creditor's right and in order to give effect to that right.

If this be so, it remains to consider whether the new method of execution is "completed" by obtaining the order under section 35 (1). In the latest edition of Williams on Bankruptcy at page 334 the learned author expresses the vies that this isso, he says, "under the new procedure of imposing a charge the execution would be "completed" by the making of the order imposing it, or by its registration, and the execution creditors would then become a creditor".

It is at this stage that I would return to what I have already suggested is the central policy underlying this legislation—Parliament's desire to strip criminals of their present assets to the extent of their past criminal profits. The Act is designed essentially to impoverish defendants, not to enrich the Crown. The subsection speaks only of "satisfying the confiscation order", not of producing assets equivalent to past criminal gains.

A number of Ponzi schemes have come to light in different jurisdictions since the global financial crisis in 2008. Such schemes usually involve investors and assets located in many different jurisdictions. Faced with a massive insolvency, as in this case, some courts have sought to make, and in some cases have gone on to make, orders to facilitate an equal distribution between private investors, past and present.

Nor is there any evidence that the plaintiffs exercised undue haste to obtain a preferred position for themselves as compared with the general body of creditors; nor that they took, or sought to take, unfair advantage of any knowledge which they had acquired of any other matter or circumstance which was unknown to the other creditors.