Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2015] All ER (D) 19 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2015] EWCA Crim 816
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Gilbart and Judge Tonking

Representation Rex Tedd QC for the defendants.
  Andrew Mitchell QC and Paul Sharkey (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 21 May 2015


Sentence - Confiscation order - Proceeds of crime - Defendants being convicted of conspiracy to cheat public revenue - Defendants convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue through 'MTIC' fraud, involving repayments of VAT on export of mobile telephones - Judge calculating benefit in respect of defendants being in excess of £20m - Defendants appealing against confiscation orders - Whether 'benefit' for purposes of statute being aggregate of amounts claimed by exporter only - Whether failure to so limit benefit being disproportionate - , - European Convention on Human Rights, First Protocol, art 1.

The Case

Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendants' appeals against confiscation orders made pursuant to of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, following their conviction of a conspiracy to cheat the public revenue through 'MTIC' fraud. The fraud involved the repayment of VAT on the export of goods. The court rejected the defendants' contention that the loss to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners was the aggregate of the amounts claimed by the exporter, and that that was the benefit for the purposes of ss10 and 76 of the Act. Further, the court held that the way in which the judge had dealt with benefit had not had a disproportionate effect for the purposes of art1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

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