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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
