Assets Recovery Agency, R (on the application of) v He & Anor

Assets Recovery Agency, R (on the application of) v He & Anor

Proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are civil in nature, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, and the evidence establishes a good arguable case that the property is recoverable. The interim receiving order should not be varied or discharged at this stage, and the Act and the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Parties
Claimant: Director of the Assets Recovery Agency; First Respondent: Jia Jin He; Second Respondent: Dan Dan Chen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation/discharge of Interim Receiving Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Post Interim Receiving Order, Application to Vary/discharge
Outcome
Application to vary or discharge interim receiving order dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Receiving Orders, Standard of Proof, Civil Vs Criminal Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Article 7 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Money Laundering, Asset Freezing
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Interim Receiving Orders Standard of Proof Civil Vs Criminal Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Article 7 ECHR +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of the Assets Recovery Agency

Claimant

Jia Jin He

First Respondent

Dan Dan Chen

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation/discharge of Interim Receiving Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Post Interim Receiving Order, Application to Vary/discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are civil or criminal in nature
  2. 2 What standard of proof applies to interim receiving orders under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the interim receiving order should be varied or discharged based on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are civil in nature, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, and the evidence establishes a good arguable case that the property is recoverable. The interim receiving order should not be varied or discharged at this stage, and the Act and the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Court Disposition

Application to vary or discharge interim receiving order dismissed

Orders

  • No variation or discharge of the interim receiving order at present;
  • Receiver to produce report by 15 January;