Skip to main content

What is “Criminal property” ?

Supreme Court of United Kingdom- Deciding the appeal filed by the prosecution in a money laundering case wherein the respondents were charged with breach of Section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002 (POCA), four main issues were raised, namely, whether Section 328 POCA requires property to constitute “criminal property” prior to the arrangement operating, whether “criminal property” has to exist when the defendant enters or becomes concerned with the arrangement, whether the sums received into the bank accounts constituted “criminal property” before being paid into the account, whether the actus reus of Section 328 POCA offence was committed. The Court in order to reach a decision explained and interpreted various provisions of POCA, Council Directives 91/308/EEC and 2005/60/EC as well as referred to cases on “criminal property”.

As per the facts, a fraudster, B, established 4 “ghost” websites falsely pretending to offer cut-price motor insurance. He also recruited associates to open bank accounts for channeling the proceeds. H was one such associate. One website was named AM Insurance, which operated from 1 September 2011 to January 2012. Shortly before the website went live, H opened two bank accounts, one with Lloyds Bank and one with Barclays Bank. Subsequently, B took control of these accounts and the related bank cards. In total, members of the public were duped into paying £417,709 into the Lloyds’ account and £176,434 into the Barclays’ account for non-existent insurance cover. B pleaded guilty while H stood trial.

The Court unanimously allowed the petition and held with regard to the first issue that the “criminal property” in Sections 327-329 POCA refer to property which already has the quality of being “criminal property” by reason of prior criminal conduct distinct from the conduct alleged to constitute the commission of the money laundering offence itself, with regard to the second issue that it does not matter whether criminal property existed when the arrangement was first made but what matters is that the property should be criminal when the arrangement operates on it. The Court further observed that if Section 328 did not require property to constitute criminal property before an arrangement came into operation, it would have serious potential consequences in relation to banks and other financial institutions that are already under onerous obligations to report known, suspected or reasonably suspected money laundering.

Lord Toulson, answering the third and fourth issue stated that the sums received did not constitute “criminal property” before being paid into the bank accounts and the property of victims turned into criminal property not by the arrangement but by the fact that it was obtained from the victims by deception making the said arrangement between B and the respondent for its retention capable of constituting an offence under Section 328, respectively. [R v. GH, [2015] UKSC 24, decided on 22.4.2015]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/05/14/criminal-property-mentioned-in-the-proceeds-of-crime-act-2002-interpreted.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more