A total sentence of two years’ imprisonment was appropriate following pleas of guilty to distributing infringing articles contrary to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.107(1)(d), furnishing false information contrary to the Theft Act 1968 s.17(1)(b) and possessing criminal property contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.329(1). For a sustained period, the offender had copied or produced audio books, without the appropriate licences or permissions, and had sold them through the internet for a profit of £56,000.

[2017] EWCA Crim 141

A judge had erred in holding that he had jurisdiction to make a confiscation order following a postponement order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.14 where the prosecution had not complied with the timetable for the confiscation proceedings. The court had made a forfeiture order, contrary to s.15(2), meaning that s.14(12) applied to prevent the prosecution relying on the saving provision of s.14(11).

[2015] EWCA Crim 305

A judge’s decision to reject a submission of no case to answer and leave a charge of money laundering before a jury was correct, as there were enormous amounts of evidence as to the suspect movement of funds and the criminal nature of loan monies paid into an account.

[2015] EWCA Crim 333

A magistrates’ court had erred in allowing a submission of no case to answer at the end of the Crown’s case in an individual’s trial for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. The magistrates had not had sufficient evidence at that stage to conclude that the accused had a valid defence that he was unaware of the existence of the notice, and they had erred in being led into considering the issue of whether the enforcement had been issued in time.

[2014] EWHC 4550 (Admin)

A judge had been entitled to allow the prosecution to add an alternative charge of concealment of criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.327(1) to an indictment containing a charge of conspiracy to steal, and had not been required to consider whether adding such a charge was in the public interest.

[2014] EWCA Crim 1475

A search warrant issued at the instigation of the Environment Agency against an individual and companies suspected of the illegal deposit of waste and money laundering was unlawful, as it failed to comply with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.8 and s.15; further, the search based on the warrant was unlawful, as the warrant failed to identify so far as practicable the articles being sought, in breach of s.15(6)(b).

[2014] EWHC 2068 (Admin)

In order to avoid contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, the rules for assessing the benefit of crime, for the purposes of a confiscation order, had to be imposed proportionately.

[2012] UKSC 51

Where a bank suspected a customer of money laundering, an implied term in the bank-customer contract permitted it to refuse to execute a payment instruction pending permission from the Serious Organised Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.335. Moreover, the bank was not obliged to provide the customer with details of its disclosure to the agency. Where the provision of that information might amount to a “tipping-off” offence under s.333, the bank was obliged to refuse to provide it.

[2012] EWHC 1283 (QB)

The offence of money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.328(1) would only be committed where the property in question was “criminal property” at the time of the relevant arrangement; the appellant, who had knowingly submitting false mortgage applications on behalf of third parties, was not guilty of the offence, because when he entered into the relevant arrangements with the mortgage brokers the property in question was not criminal in the hands of the mortgage company.

[2011] EWCA Crim 146

The natural and ordinary meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.328(1) was that the arrangement to which it referred must be one which related to property which was criminal property at the time when the arrangement began to operate on it. To say that it extended to property which was originally legitimate but became criminal only as a result of carrying out the arrangement was to stretch the language of the section beyond its proper limits.

[2010] EWCA Crim 1925

The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the refusal of an offender’s application to vary a confiscation order made before the Crown Court pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.23.

[2010] EWCA Crim 1932

A conviction for an offence of acquiring criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.329(1) was safe where the judge had given the jury appropriate directions with regard to breaches of the PACE codes of practice Code C and the definition of “acquiring” for the purposes of s.329(1).

[2010] EWCA Crim 1779

Convictions for money laundering were unsafe and quashed where the trial judge had failed to properly and adequately direct the jury on matters including the offence of cheating the Revenue, which had incorrectly been left open as a basis on which the jury could convict.

[2010] EWCA Crim 1381

A judge had been entitled to order that sentences imposed on three offenders for money laundering contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.328 be served consecutive to sentences imposed for conspiracy to contravene the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.19 and s.21, as the conduct involved in the money laundering offences had added to the culpability of the conduct involved in the conspiracy offences.

[2010] EWCA Crim 709

Despite the summing up in a lengthy fraud case being turgid and unsystematic, its structure and style were not such as to affect the safety of the convictions. Whether such shortcomings made a conviction unsafe was case-specific, and the judge had eventually crystallised the issues.

[2010] EWCA Crim 548

Where a customer brought an ordinary non-summary action against his bank for damages flowing from its failure to carry out his instructions, and the bank relied on an authorised disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 , there was no reason why it ought not to be put to proof, at trial, of its suspicion that the sums involved were criminal property. It was not enough for the bank simply to adduce a witness statement by its solicitor attesting to its suspicion and to expect to obtain summary judgment.

[2010] EWCA Civ 31

A defendant could not seek to challenge a confiscation order that had been made by consent on the basis of information that he himself had supplied as to the extent of his realisable assets, simply on the ground that there had been an oversight or that he had received poor advice.

[2009] EWCA Crim 2605

The word “consideration” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.329 was to be given its normal legal meaning.

[2009] EWCA Crim 2242

For the purpose of making a confiscation order the value of the benefit obtained by an offender who had been guilty of managing a company as a director in contravention of a director disqualification order, or an undertaking not to act as a director, was not necessarily the turnover of the relevant company or companies but the real benefit the offender had obtained personally.

[2009] EWCA Crim 1303

On a proper construction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, it was not necessary, in respect of money laundering offences, to prove the specific offence from which criminal property had derived so long as the source was criminal; and the obligation to make disclosure did not require proof of actual money laundering, it arose in circumstances where there was suspicion, or reasonable cause to suspect, that this was taking place.

[2009] HCJAC 60

The requirement of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.329(2) that the court’s permission had to be obtained to bring proceedings in the circumstances specified by the section was procedural and directory. If proceedings were brought without permission the defect could, if appropriate, be cured on application to the court, which could reflect in costs its view of the conduct of the proceedings.

[2009] EWCA Civ 18

If an offender’s only role in relation to property connected with his criminal conduct was to act as a courier on behalf of another, that property did not amount to property obtained by him within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.80(1) or the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.71(4) or to “payment or other reward” within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 s.2(3).

[2009] EWCA Crim 8

Where a defendant had been convicted of possession of criminal property, his benefit from criminal conduct under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.6(4)(c) , for the purposes of making a confiscation order, was the full value of all the items stolen. The fact that stolen property had been restored to its true owner was irrelevant. The legislation was concerned with confiscating the value of the defendant’s benefit and was not limited to the actual proceeds of his crime or his profit.

[2008] EWCA Crim 239

In order to establish guilt under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.327 or s.328, the prosecution had to prove, amongst other things, at least the type of criminal conduct that had generated the alleged criminal property. It was not sufficient to show that the circumstances were such that the property could have had no lawful origin.

[2008] EWCA Crim 2

The admission of the previous convictions of a prosecution witness on drug-related offences amounted to an irregularity; however, the irregularity was not such as to affect the safety of the appellant’s conviction.

[2007] EWCA Crim 1457

The court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the discharge of a foreign national arrested under a European warrant where the notice of appeal was not filed and served within the time limit in the Extradition Act 2003 s.28(5), and the court had no power to extend the time for serving and filing the notice.

[2007] EWHC 615 (Admin)

Profits made from trading in legitimate goods were not converted into criminal property by a failure to declare them to the Inland Revenue or the Department of Work and Pensions. The failure to declare the profits for the purposes of income tax could give rise to a criminal offence but it did not make the trading itself an offence.

[2006] EWCA Crim 229

Where a hearing in the Crown Court was incorrectly treated as a preparatory hearing and jurisdiction to hear an appeal was declined, the Court of Appeal was not precluded from expressing an opinion as to the merits of the appeal.

[2005] EWCA Crim 1579

The court gave guidance to the legal profession on its obligations under Parts 7 and 8 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[2003] EWHC 2260 (Fam)