header-logo header-logo

17 August 2012 / Daniel Lightman KC
Issue: 7527 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

A drafting enigma

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll