header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 August 2012 / Daniel Lightman KC
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

A drafting enigma

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Daniel Lightman unravels the puzzles within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

A key innovation introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) is the power it gave to enforcement agencies, including the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), to conduct civil recovery investigations and then to apply for civil recovery orders (CROs) in respect of property which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct. Ten years after their introduction, the Supreme Court has recently, for the first time, considered the extra-territorial ambit of civil recovery investigative powers and CROs.

Misnomers

The use of the expression “recovery order” is inapposite, since it wrongly suggests that the property at one time belonged to SOCA and that the function of a CRO is to “restore” the property to SOCA, whereas a CRO is in reality a civil forfeiture. When a CRO is made, its proceeds do not go to the victims of the crime, but rather to the UK Exchequer—and the Home Office has a discretion to incentivise SOCA by providing

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll