The Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam

The Serious Organised Crime Agency v Azam

The applicant is not required to prove the absence of other available assets to obtain a legal expenses exclusion from a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Unless there is specific evidence or substantial grounds for suspicion of other available assets, prior non-disclosure alone does not justify refusal of the exclusion. The desirability of legal representation and the absence of reliable evidence of other assets mean it is just to allow the exclusion sought.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Serious Organised Crime Agency; Defendant/appellant: Amir Azam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Variation of Property Freezing Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed on the first ground; permission to appeal refused on the second ground.
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Orders, Legal Expenses Exclusion, Burden of Proof, Article 6 ECHR, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Property Freezing Orders Legal Expenses Exclusion Burden of Proof Article 6 ECHR Article 1 First Protocol ECHR

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant/respondent

Amir Azam

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Variation of Property Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant must prove the absence of other available assets to obtain a legal expenses exclusion from a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the judge was entitled to find that the applicant had other available assets based on prior non-disclosure
  3. 3 Correct approach to the burden of proof in applications for legal expenses exclusions under the 2002 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not required to prove the absence of other available assets to obtain a legal expenses exclusion from a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Unless there is specific evidence or substantial grounds for suspicion of other available assets, prior non-disclosure alone does not justify refusal of the exclusion. The desirability of legal representation and the absence of reliable evidence of other assets mean it is just to allow the exclusion sought.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on the first ground; permission to appeal refused on the second ground.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the first ground.
  • Appeal allowed; property freezing order to be varied to permit legal expenses exclusion for Mr Azam.