Download Proceeds of Crimes

Proceeds of Crime and
Asset Recovery
21 February 2007
A Proceeds of Crime
Legislative History
1978






Operation Julie
R v Cuthbertson
Conspiracy to produce LSD
Forfeiture Order - s 27 Misuse of Drugs Act
1971
Cash, cars, paintings, bank accounts in
Switzerland and France, a debt owed to a
defendant
Forfeiture order upheld by Court of Appeal
1981







R v Cutherbertson
House of Lords :
Conspiracy not an offence under 1971 Act
S 27 - No extraterritorial effect
S 27 - No enforcement machinery
S 27 - No Parliamentary intention for orders
against drug trafficking profits
Allowed appeal against forfeiture order
1984

Hodgson Committee recommendations
Confiscation powers
 Prescribed minimum but no maximum
 Available in Crown Courts only
 Magistrates to have power to commit for
confiscation

1985

Home Affairs Select Committee
“Misuse of Hard Drugs – Interim
Report”
 Approved US policy of giving courts
“draconian powers” to remove
proceeds of drug trafficking

1986

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
First E&W confiscation legislation
 Limited to drug trafficking cases
 Discretionary statutory assumptions

1988
UN Vienna Convention
 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Extended confiscation to non-drugs
cases
 No statutory assumptions in nondrugs cases

1989

Creation of Financial Action Task
Force by G7
Purpose : the development and
promotion of national and international
policies to combat money laundering
 40 Recommendations
 Mutual evaluations
 Blacklist – NCCT’s

1990

Criminal Justice International Co-operation Act 1990
 Introduction of cash forfeiture system
 Amendments to DTOA 1986
 Allowed UK to ratify Vienna Convention

Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (NI) Order 1990
 First NI confiscation legislation
 Discretionary statutory assumptions in drugs cases
 No statutory assumptions in non-drugs cases

Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and
Confiscation
1991

Home Office Working Group on
Confiscation
First report
 Recommended amendments to DTOA
1986

1993

Criminal Justice Act 1993
Created drug money laundering
offences
 Amended DTOA 1986 and CJCNIO
1990
 Most amendments not brought into
force

1994

Drug Trafficking Act 1994
Consolidation of drugs related
confiscation and forfeiture provisions
 Mandatory statutory assumptions for
drugs cases

1995

Proceeds of Crime Act 1995
More strengthening amendments
 Discretionary statutory assumptions in
non-drugs cases

1996

Proceeds of Crime (NI) Order 1996
Replaced the 1990 Order
 Introduced mandatory statutory
assumptions for drugs cases
 Introduced discretionary statutory
assumptions for non-drugs cases

1997

Home Office Working Group on
Confiscation – Third Report
Recommended “full” civil forfeiture
 Recommended National Confiscation
Agency
 Recommended further amendments
to DTA 1994 and POCO 1996

2000

PIU Report “Recovering the Proceeds
of Crime”
2002

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002







Creation of Assets Recovery Agency
Civil recovery proceedings in High Court
Taxation of suspected criminal gains
Extended cash forfeiture scheme
Prosecution appeals on confiscation issues
Mandatory statutory assumptions if “criminal
lifestyle”
Strengthened money laundering offences
2005

Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act 2005
Significant amendments to civil
recovery scheme
 Minor amendments to confiscation
scheme

2006

“Criminal Memoirs” consultation by
Home Office
Possible new offence for payment to
criminals for publications about crimes
 Possible enlargement of civil recovery
scheme to cover publishers’ royalties

2007

Government introduces Serious Crime
Bill proposing :
Merger of Assets Recovery Agency
into Serious Organised Crime Agency
 Civil Recovery proceedings to be
brought by prosecutors
 Additional investigation powers for
cash forfeiture investigations

Trends 1986 - 2007





Increasing international pressure to comply
with norms
Less divergence between provisions in
drugs and non-drugs cases
Increasing use of civil alternatives
Broadening definitions of criminal proceeds
Reduction in judicial discretion in
confiscation hearings
Perception
Perception
“Clean” or “Dirty” Money ?
Confiscation proceedings
 Civil recovery proceedings
 Cash forfeiture proceedings
 Taxation proceedings
 Money laundering offences

Evidence often offered to prove
criminal origin of property (1)







Previous criminal convictions
Criminal associates
Contamination of cash
Accomplice evidence
Audit Trails
Unlikelihood of legitimate origin
Absence of commercial or domestic logic
Evidence often offered to prove
criminal origin of property (2)
Expert evidence
 Packaging of proceeds
 Denomination of banknotes
 Lies by the defendant
 Inferences from silence
 Admissions
