R v Amardeep Marwaha & Ors

R v Amardeep Marwaha & Ors

Each defendant was an essential and knowing participant in the fraud, not a minor contributor, and jointly obtained the whole benefit of the excise duty and VAT evaded. The Excise Goods Regulations imposed joint and several liability for excise duty on each defendant due to their real and immediate responsibility for the goods reaching the excise duty point. The benefit is not limited to what each was paid, and apportionment is not appropriate. The uplift for change in value of money is mandatory and proportionate. The confiscation orders made reflect the joint benefit and prevent double recovery.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Defendant: Amardeep Marwaha; Defendant: Barry Chambers; Defendant: Michael Welham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing and Submissions
Outcome
Confiscation orders granted against all three defendants for the full joint benefit, with available amounts specified and orders to prevent double recovery.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Excise Duty Fraud, VAT Fraud, Joint Benefit Liability, Application of Excise Goods Regulations, Pecuniary Advantage Under POCA
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Tax Law Confiscation Orders Excise Duty Fraud VAT Fraud Joint Benefit Liability Application of Excise Goods Regulations +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Amardeep Marwaha

Defendant

Barry Chambers

Defendant

Michael Welham

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing and Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants jointly obtained the benefit of the excise duty and VAT frauds for confiscation purposes under POCA
  2. 2 Whether the Excise Goods Regulations impose joint and several liability for excise duty on the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the benefit should be apportioned or limited to what each defendant was paid

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant was an essential and knowing participant in the fraud, not a minor contributor, and jointly obtained the whole benefit of the excise duty and VAT evaded. The Excise Goods Regulations imposed joint and several liability for excise duty on each defendant due to their real and immediate responsibility for the goods reaching the excise duty point. The benefit is not limited to what each was paid, and apportionment is not appropriate. The uplift for change in value of money is mandatory and proportionate. The confiscation orders made reflect the joint benefit and prevent double recovery.

Court Disposition

Confiscation orders granted against all three defendants for the full joint benefit, with available amounts specified and orders to prevent double recovery.

Orders

  • Amardeep Marwaha: Benefit £39,018,933.59; available amount £18,008.55; 6 months' imprisonment in default; 8.3% interest in 25 Woodrush Way and 50% interest in Ford Focus A5 VXY identified under s.10A POCA; order not to be enforced to extent of recovery under other orders for joint benefit.
  • Barry Chambers: Benefit £31,615,930.65; available amount £30,368.56; 6 months' imprisonment in default; order not to be enforced to extent of recovery under other orders for joint benefit.