ACCOUNTS

In confiscation proceedings following money laundering offences, a judge had been entitled to conclude that a husband and wife had hidden assets and that there was no indication that those assets were less than the benefit sums calculated in the orders. Further, the wife had failed to show that her shop had provided an additional legitimate income that accounted for the unexplained credits to her accounts.

[2013] EWCA Crim 657

Charges against the former prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago of knowingly making false declarations as to his financial affairs had been brought within the five-year time limit under the Integrity in Public Life Act (Trinidad and Tobago) 1987. Although his convictions had been quashed for apparent bias by the chief magistrate, he had not been entitled to a stay of further proceedings.

[2008] UKPC 24

A wasted costs order against the appellant firm of solicitors was upheld since a reasonable solicitor would have assumed that the work set out in a breakdown prepared by a forensic accountant was unnecessary. Accordingly the costs incurred for such work was unreasonable.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2544

The Inland Revenue was “charged with the duty of investigating offences” within s.67(9) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when conducting a “Hansard interview”, so that Code C applied and the defendants should have been cautioned and a tape recording made of the interview. However, the Hansard evidence was introduced as lies told by the defendants relevant to their dishonest state of mind and its admission would not have had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted it.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2256

Complainants were not entitled to the disclosure of witness statements used in the course of a police investigation until its conclusion at the earliest. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted.

[2002] EWCA Civ 389

In an appeal against a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for one offence of failing to take all reasonable steps to preserve company records under ss.222(5) and (6) Companies Act 1985, in view of the exceptionally unusual circumstances which led to the defendant’s case being heard in the Crown Court (as opposed to the magistrates’ court) the sentence would be substituted with the more appropriate term of three months’ imprisonment.