Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 301 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWCA Crim 1303
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Scott Baker LJ, Burnett J and Judge Roberts QC

Representation Kate Lumbers (instructed by Wilkins Solicitors) for the defendant.
  Nicholas Syfret QC (instructed by Darbys Solicitors) for Aylebury Vale District Council.
Judgment Dates: 19 June 2008


Sentence - Confiscation order - Proceeds of crime - Benefit fraud - Defendant claiming benefits - Defendant obtaining mortgage and buying property fraudulently to help pay debt of family - Defendant transferring property back to family - Defendant having no beneficial interest in property - Whether property could properly be included in benefit figure and as realisable asset - Interpretation of statute - ss 72AA(4), 74(10)(b, 74(12), 75.

The Case

Sentence Confiscation order. The transfer of property to a defendant, through the fraudulent securing of a mortgage, represented a benefit obtained by him or her 'as a result of or in connection with the commission of a known offence', and the assumption, pursuant to s72AA(4)(a) applied. It was not necessary, to bring the assumption in s72AA(4)(a), namely that property had been received by him as a result of or in connection with the commission of offences, into play for the prosecution to show that the defendant had known that the transfer of the property to her had been part of a fraudulent scheme.

Practice Areas

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