Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 395 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWCA Civ 1720
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Simon Brown, May and Clarke LJJ

Representation Andrew Mitchell QC and Susan Brown (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution.
  Andrew Moran QC and James Dawson (instructed by Bermans) for the second and third respondents.
Judgment Dates: 27 November 2002

Catchwords

Drug trafficking - Seizure of proceeds - Interim restraint and receivership orders - Prosecution alleging company laundering proceeds - Proper approach to exercise of powers - Proper approach to piercing corporate veil - s 26.

The Case

When considering the application of interim restraint and receivership orders to the assets of a defendant's company, the court commented (i) that the correct approach to the exercise of its powers under s26 of to make interim restraint and receivership orders was that if, on the documents, a good arguable case arose for treating particular assets as the realisable property of a defendant, then the relevant restraint (and possibly receivership) orders should ordinarily be made; and (ii) that where it was established upon a full investigation of the facts that, save for the most limited and sporadic continuation of its original business activities, a small family company from a given date had wholly changed character and become essentially a vehicle for money laundering and, through investment, profiting from the proceeds of crime, it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil and to impute to the directors involved the ownership of the relevant company assets.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.