Michaelides, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1276 (18 September 2025)

Michaelides, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1276 (18 September 2025)

The applicable standard of proof in confiscation proceedings under POCA is the civil standard, and the judge was entitled to make findings of benefit and available amount based on the evidence, including uncharged conduct, applying the statutory assumptions. There was no error in law or fact justifying interference with the confiscation order.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1276
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Christopher Michaelides
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Confiscation Order
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Standard of Proof, Criminal Lifestyle Assumptions, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Standard of Proof Criminal Lifestyle Assumptions Benefit From Criminal Conduct

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Christopher Michaelides

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate standard of proof for establishing benefit from criminal conduct in confiscation proceedings under POCA where the defendant has not been convicted of the alleged conduct?
  2. 2 Did the judge err in calculating the benefit figure and available amount for the confiscation order?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicable standard of proof in confiscation proceedings under POCA is the civil standard, and the judge was entitled to make findings of benefit and available amount based on the evidence, including uncharged conduct, applying the statutory assumptions. There was no error in law or fact justifying interference with the confiscation order.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed