header-logo header-logo

21 May 2010
Issue: 7418 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Proceeds of crime—Confiscation order—Realisable assets

Larkfield Ltd v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office v May and others [2010] EWCA Civ 521, [2010] All ER (D) 86 (May)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Sir Andrew Morritt C, Etherton and Elias LJJ, 12 May 2010

A dispute as to the beneficial ownership of property alleged to be realisable property is to be resolved in accordance with ordinary principles of property law, save to the extent that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988) provides.

Andrew Mitchell QC and Aidan Casey (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for L. John McGuinness QC and Rupert Jones (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Revenue.

The claimant company was the registered proprietor of a flat in London, which it had acquired in August 1999. The Revenue claimed that M was the beneficial owner of the flat. M pleaded guilty in September 2001 to conspiracy to cheat the Revenue in a VAT carousel fraud. In August 2002, a confiscation order was made which included the value attributed to the flat on

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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll