header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Surviving the ‘POCA freeze’

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
02 August 2018 / Mickaela Fox , Mickaela Fox
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail
nlj_7804_fox

Which party should bear the cost of complying with POCA? Mickaela Fox & Nicholas Medcroft examine the consent regime

  • Looks at the consent regime under Part 7, Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).
  • Considers which party should bear the costs of compliance with POCA’s mandatory ‘freeze’.
  • Explores Joshua Brien v Irwin Mitchell.

Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) is concerned with money laundering. As well as creating the principal money laundering offences it establishes the consent regime, whereby a party that makes an ‘authorised disclosure’ to, and obtains ‘appropriate consent’ from the National Crime Agency (NCA) is afforded a defence to money laundering.

Appropriate consent can be actual or deemed. Deemed consent arises in two ways: firstly, if no reply is received to an authorised disclosure within seven days; and secondly, where consent to an authorised disclosure is refused, then after a 31-day moratorium period, if the disclosing party has heard nothing, consent is deemed to be given. Recent amendments to POCA in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 provides

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
Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll