header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Surviving the ‘POCA freeze’

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. 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
Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Commercial disputes practice bolstered by partner hire

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

London competition team expands with collective actions specialist hire

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Commercial dispute resolution team in London welcomes partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll