National Crime Agency v Azam & Ors (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 3573 (QB) (30 October 2014)

National Crime Agency v Azam & Ors (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 3573 (QB) (30 October 2014)

Kalsoom did not satisfy the statutory defence under s.266(3)(a) and (4) POCA because she did not take steps in reliance on obtaining Thurza Court, nor was there a link between any detriment and such steps. The court has no discretion to refuse a CRO once property is found recoverable, and her proprietary or matrimonial claims do not override the statutory regime. The making of the CRO is not incompatible with her rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3573 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; First Respondent: Amir Azam; Second Respondent: Kalsoom Sanam (formerly Kalsoom Amir)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Order Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (poca) / Post Trial Judgment on Part 2 (defence of Second Respondent and Her Interest in Property)
Outcome
Statutory defence under s.266(3)(a) POCA fails; CRO to be made over Thurza Court and Wheatash Road.
Legal Topics
Statutory Defence Under POCA S.266, Ancillary Relief After Foreign Divorce, Property Rights of Innocent Spouse, Human Rights (a1 P1 Echr), Trusts and Beneficial Ownership
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Family Law Statutory Defence Under POCA S.266 Ancillary Relief After Foreign Divorce Property Rights of Innocent Spouse Human Rights (a1 P1 Echr) Trusts and Beneficial Ownership

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Amir Azam

First Respondent

Kalsoom Sanam (formerly Kalsoom Amir)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Order Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (poca) / Post Trial Judgment on Part 2 (defence of Second Respondent and Her Interest in Property)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Second Respondent (Kalsoom) can resist a Civil Recovery Order (CRO) over Thurza Court and Wheatash Road under POCA s.266(3)(a) and (b)
  2. 2 Whether Kalsoom's proprietary or matrimonial claims override the CRO regime
  3. 3 Whether deprivation of property would be incompatible with her rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Kalsoom did not satisfy the statutory defence under s.266(3)(a) and (4) POCA because she did not take steps in reliance on obtaining Thurza Court, nor was there a link between any detriment and such steps. The court has no discretion to refuse a CRO once property is found recoverable, and her proprietary or matrimonial claims do not override the statutory regime. The making of the CRO is not incompatible with her rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Statutory defence under s.266(3)(a) POCA fails; CRO to be made over Thurza Court and Wheatash Road.

Orders

  • Civil Recovery Order made vesting Thurza Court and Wheatash Road in the Trustee for civil recovery.
  • Application for permission to amend Points of Defence refused.