Proceeds of Crime in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Waya (Terry)
    • Supreme Court
    • 14 Nov 2012

    The purpose of the legislation is plainly, and has repeatedly been held to be, to impose upon convicted defendants a severe regime for removing from them their proceeds of crime. It does not, however, follow that its deterrent qualities represent the essence (or the "grain") of the legislation. They are, no doubt, an incident of it, but they are not its essence. Its essence, and its frequently declared purpose, is to remove from criminals the pecuniary proceeds of their crime.

    Although these propositions involve the possibility of removing from the defendant by way of confiscation order a sum larger than may in fact represent his net proceeds of crime, they are consistent with the statute's objective and represent proportionate means of achieving it.

    Similarly, it can be accepted that the scheme of the Act, and of previous confiscation legislation, is to focus on the value of the defendant's obtained proceeds of crime, whether retained or not. It is an important part of the scheme that even if the proceeds have been spent, a confiscation order up to the value of the proceeds will follow against legitimately acquired assets to the extent that they are available for realisation.

    The case of a defendant such as was considered in Morgan and Bygrave is, however, a different one. To make a confiscation order in his case, when he has restored to the loser any proceeds of crime which he had ever had, is disproportionate. It would not achieve the statutory objective of removing his proceeds of crime but would simply be an additional financial penalty.

  • R v Rezvi
    • House of Lords
    • 24 Jan 2002

    It is a notorious fact that professional and habitual criminals frequently take steps to conceal their profits from crime. Effective but fair powers of confiscating the proceeds of crime are therefore essential. The provisions of the 1988 Act are aimed at depriving such offenders of the proceeds of their criminal conduct. Its purposes are to punish convicted offenders, to deter the commission of further offences and to reduce the profits available to fund further criminal enterprises.

  • R v Harmer (Roy Peter)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 21 Jan 2005

    This intention or knowledge is precisely what the prosecution in the present case accepted they could not prove when the words "knew or" were omitted from the particulars of count 2. If the prosecution cannot prove that the money was the proceeds of crime, they cannot prove that the appellant knew that it was. So section 1(2) of the 1977 Act applies and is not satisfied.

  • R v Raymond George May
    • House of Lords
    • 14 May 2008

    (6) D ordinarily obtains property if in law he owns it, whether alone or jointly, which will ordinarily connote a power of disposition or control, as where a person directs a payment or conveyance of property to someone else. Mere couriers or custodians or other very minor contributors to an offence, rewarded by a specific fee and having no interest in the property or the proceeds of sale, are unlikely to be found to have obtained that property.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Taxing the Proceeds of Crime
    • Nbr. 8-2, April 2000
    • Journal of Financial Crime
    • 136-144
    Organised crime groups, in particular drug traffickers, generate considerable amounts of money from their criminal activities. Over the last two decades jurisdictions around the world have therefor...
  • Taxing the Proceeds of Crime
    • Nbr. 1-2, February 1997
    • Journal of Money Laundering Control
    • 117-124
    Illegally acquired gains are taxable, according to the judge‐made law of common law countries. Revenue codes are surprisingly silent on the subject. For a short while, though, things were different...
  • Knowledge Management in the Proceeds of Crime Community
    • Nbr. 8-3, January 2001
    • Journal of Financial Crime
    • 207-217
    The title of this paper immediately raises a number of issues. Is there such an entity as ‘the proceeds of crime community’? If such an entity exists, can it be ‘managed’? What role does knowledge ...
  • Tax Evasion: Update on the Proceeds of Crime Debate
    • Nbr. 3-4, February 2000
    • Journal of Money Laundering Control
    • 371-372
    This paper considers the argument that the financial benefit (or ‘pecuniary advantage’) derived from tax evasion does not represent the proceeds of crime for the purposes of the money‐laundering le...
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results