Proceeds of crime

A restraining order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and a receiver was appointed to a group of companies, but the orders were subsequently set aside. The Supreme Court held that although as a matter of domestic law the setting aside of the receiver’s appointment did not retrospectively affect his entitlement to be paid out of those assets for his proper remuneration and expenses during the period of the receivership, on the facts of the case there was no good arguable case to do so. It further held that, as there had been a total failure of consideration for the basis of the appointment of the receivers,  the CPS were the parties required to pay the fees.