header-logo header-logo

Crime brief

07 August 2008 / Andrew Keogh
Issue: 7333 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Proceeds of crime

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Allad [2008] EWCA Crim 1741, [2008] All ER (D) 407 (Jul)

The defendant had monies on account totalling £5,000. A restraint order was made against their client’s assets and the question arose as to whether or not the defendant was entitled to the £5,000 on account of the fact that at the time the restraint order was made their fees were already in excess of that amount. It was held that the defendant was entitled to the monies.

If the monies had not been held on account of costs in client account the situation would have been different and the defendant would simply have become a creditor. It is a reminder to all solicitors to ensure monies are obtained on account, but that does raise problems for some firms who do not have a client account (common for criminal firms), those firms therefore do this type of work at great risk.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll