Sharma v R.

Sharma v R.

The appellant obtained the full amount deposited into the fraudulent account and section 71 requires confiscation of the entire benefit, regardless of subsequent transfers or alleged disproportionate interference with human rights. No evidence justified reduction for parts or services, and interpreter use was properly managed by the judge.

Parties
Appellant: Ajay Kumar Sharma; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit Calculation, Human Rights, Interpreter Use, Joint Criminal Enterprise
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Benefit Calculation Human Rights Interpreter Use Joint Criminal Enterprise

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Kumar Sharma

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the benefit figure should be reduced for parts and services allegedly delivered to the victim
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing due to interpreter restrictions
  3. 3 Whether section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 should be read down to avoid disproportionate interference with human rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant obtained the full amount deposited into the fraudulent account and section 71 requires confiscation of the entire benefit, regardless of subsequent transfers or alleged disproportionate interference with human rights. No evidence justified reduction for parts or services, and interpreter use was properly managed by the judge.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • confiscation order in the sum of £179,000.34 upheld
  • appellant to pay within eleven months or serve three years' imprisonment consecutive to substantive sentence