Crown Prosecution Service v C & Anor [2010] EWHC 136 (Admin) (03 February 2010)

Crown Prosecution Service v C & Anor [2010] EWHC 136 (Admin) (03 February 2010)

On the balance of probabilities, the Defendant was and remains the true owner of 100% of the equity in 61 St. Mary's Way. The purported sales and transfers of legal title were shams intended to conceal the Defendant's ownership and frustrate the confiscation order. The application for appointment of a Receiver is granted.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 136 (Admin)
Parties
Prosecutor: The Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: 'C'; Interested Party: Edward Rooney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Receiver in Confiscation Proceedings / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Beneficial Ownership, Appointment of Receiver, Sham Transactions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown Prosecution Service

Prosecutor

'C'

Defendant

Edward Rooney

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Receiver in Confiscation Proceedings / Judgment on Application

  1. 1 Whether Edward Rooney is the beneficial owner of 61 St. Mary's Way, Hucknall or whether the Defendant remains the true owner for the purposes of satisfying a confiscation order.

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the Defendant was and remains the true owner of 100% of the equity in 61 St. Mary's Way. The purported sales and transfers of legal title were shams intended to conceal the Defendant's ownership and frustrate the confiscation order. The application for appointment of a Receiver is granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Receiver appointed to sell 61 St. Mary's Way, Hucknall in part satisfaction of the confiscation order against the Defendant.