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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll