R v Ben Stewart Richardson

R v Ben Stewart Richardson

Money in SBR (UK)'s trading account was criminal property as it represented, at least in part, benefit from criminal conduct, and the definition of criminal property in section 340(3) POCA 2002 was met. The applicant's arguments were misconceived and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Ben Stewart Richardson; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, VAT Fraud, Tax Evasion, Confiscation Proceedings
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering VAT Fraud Tax Evasion Confiscation Proceedings

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Stewart Richardson

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of £219,123 was 'criminal property' under section 340(3) of POCA 2002
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's guilty plea to count 4 was entered under a mistake of law

Ratio Decidendi

Money in SBR (UK)'s trading account was criminal property as it represented, at least in part, benefit from criminal conduct, and the definition of criminal property in section 340(3) POCA 2002 was met. The applicant's arguments were misconceived and the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused