Where a company had a proprietary claim over proceeds of fraud because they had been obtained through the unlawful use of its property by its directors, it was entitled to assert its claim in priority to a confiscation order obtained by the CPS.
HMRC had been entitled to impose penalties on a company and its directors under the Value Added Tax Act 1994 s.60 and s.61, as well as refusing a claim for input tax credit, where the company and its directors should have known that the company’s transactions were connected with missing trader fraud. In imposing the penalties, HMRC had not imported a gloss on s.60 and s.61 from EU case law, nor had it impermissibly extended the circumstances in which a criminal penalty could be imposed.
The extradition of a Czech Republic national who had been convicted of fraud offences in his absence was not unjust or oppressive, nor did it constitute an interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, notwithstanding the nine-year delay between the date of sentence and certification of the European arrest warrant. The district judge had correctly characterised the EAW as a conviction warrant and had taken full account of the passage of time.
When dismissing an application for judicial review of a refusal to discharge an extradition order following delay in removal caused by administrative errors, the court considered the meaning of “reasonable cause” in the Extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) and the impact of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of Ireland.
In assessing the loss caused by offences of fraudulently removing items of wreck without declaring them to the receiver contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s.236(1), it was not appropriate to deduct the costs that owners of the wreck would have had to incur if their property had been salvaged legitimately.