header-logo header-logo

09 March 2018 / David Bloom
Issue: 7784 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Unexplained Wealth Orders. Explained

nlj_7784_bloom

David Bloom considers UWOs—the newest enforcement measure introduced to tackle money laundering & economic crime

  • Conditions for issuing an order.
  • Consequences of non-compliance

Since 31st January 2018, the enforcement authorities in England and Wales have been empowered with a new investigative tool to tackle money laundering and economic crime: Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs). These widely-trailed measures have been billed as having the potential to redefine the asset recovery regime. However, scrutiny of the statutory framework suggests limitations and challenges in practice indicative of more modest reforms.

Background

Introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which amended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), the aim behind UWOs was set out in the legislation’s Explanatory Notes: to fill the lacuna in the POCA 2002 provisions that often meant enforcement authorities were unable to freeze or recover assets, even when they had reasonable grounds to suspect the identified assets represented the proceeds of crime, due to their inability to obtain evidence —often from overseas jurisdictions.

UWOs do not confer a new power to

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll