header-logo header-logo

14 August 2008
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Tax , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Legal profession

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

The solicitors’ client was suspected of VAT evasion. The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) obtained a restraint order (under s 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) restraining him from disposing of his assets.

He had paid £5,000 to the solicitors on account of their fees. The solicitors, who had done work worth in excess of the £5,000, wanted to transfer the money out of the client account.

HELD The purpose of a criminal restraint order, as with a civil freezing order, is not to prevent third parties from enforcing civil rights against a defendant if those rights would be unaffected by any order which may be made against the defendant at the end of the proceedings.

The solicitors were entitled to take the course proposed without committing any contempt of court. They should notify RCPO in advance, in case there was any challenge to the size or propriety of their bill, but no variation to the restraint order was required in order to enable them to utilise the money in payment of their fees.

Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Tax , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll