Surviving the ‘POCA freeze’

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

Surviving the ‘POCA freeze’

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.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Chair of the Association of Pension Lawyers joins as partner

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Group names Shakespeare Martineau partner head of Sheffield office

Blake Morgan—four promotions

Four legal directors promoted to partner across UK offices

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

Error message

Surviving the ‘POCA freeze’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Arc Pensions Law—Matthew Swynnerton

Ampa Group—Kamal Chauhan

Blake Morgan—four promotions