McDowell & Anor v The Queen

McDowell & Anor v The Queen

McDowell's trading was prohibited and unlawful; benefit comprised gross receipts from criminal conduct; lifting the corporate veil was not necessary as he was sole controller and beneficial owner; proportionality did not require deduction of expenses due to lack of evidence. Singh's trading was lawful but for failure to register; criminal conduct was failure to register, not trading; trading receipts were not benefit from criminal conduct; confiscation order quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher James McDowell; Appellant: Harjit Sarana Singh; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders
Outcome
McDowell's application refused; Singh's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Lifting Corporate Veil, Proportionality, Regulatory Offences, Benefit Assessment, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR
Criminal Law Confiscation Corporate Law Human Rights Proceeds of Crime Lifting Corporate Veil Proportionality Regulatory Offences +2 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 6 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher James McDowell

Appellant

Harjit Sarana Singh

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trading receipts constitute benefit from criminal conduct under POCA
  2. 2 Appropriateness of lifting the corporate veil in confiscation proceedings
  3. 3 Application of proportionality and Article 1 First Protocol ECHR to benefit assessment

Ratio Decidendi

McDowell's trading was prohibited and unlawful; benefit comprised gross receipts from criminal conduct; lifting the corporate veil was not necessary as he was sole controller and beneficial owner; proportionality did not require deduction of expenses due to lack of evidence. Singh's trading was lawful but for failure to register; criminal conduct was failure to register, not trading; trading receipts were not benefit from criminal conduct; confiscation order quashed.

Court Disposition

McDowell's application refused; Singh's appeal allowed.

Orders

  • McDowell: renewed application for leave to appeal refused; confiscation order stands.
  • Singh: appeal allowed; confiscation order quashed.