||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 377 (Oct)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
May LJ, David Clarke and Teare JJ
||Ivan Krolick (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Martin Beddoe (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Revenue.
||31 October 2006
Sentence - Confiscation order - Realisable property - Putative possible future receipt of lump sum under pension fund - Whether realisable property - Whether judge erring in including lump sum in assessment of realisable property - , s 71, 74.
The sought to define realisable property and should be viewed in the context of the draconian legislation whose purpose was to confiscate that which the defendant was able to realise. The property had to be realisable in some way. Whilst realisable property could extend to a contingent beneficial interest under a will, it did not extend to a putative possible future receipt of a lump sum under a pension fund upon which no loan could be raised.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary