Assets Recovery Agency v Customs and Excise & Ors [2004] EWHC 1821 (Admin) (12 July 2004)

Assets Recovery Agency v Customs and Excise & Ors [2004] EWHC 1821 (Admin) (12 July 2004)

The court found Charrington's explanation for the origin of the seized funds to be wholly incredible and inconsistent with all contemporaneous evidence, including his own admissions and the absence of any reference to diamond sales in earlier correspondence. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against Charrington. In relation to Warren, the court adjourned the matter to allow further investigation and disclosure of any documents that might support his claim to the funds.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1821 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Director of the Assets Recovery Agency; Defendant: Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Defendant: Brian Colin Charrington; Defendant: Mario Halley; Defendant: Curtis Francis Warren
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Asset Recovery / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Summary judgment granted against Charrington; proceedings against Warren adjourned for further disclosure and investigation.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Asset Recovery, Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Summary Judgment Asset Recovery Money Laundering Drug Trafficking Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of the Assets Recovery Agency

Claimant

Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Defendant

Brian Colin Charrington

Defendant

Mario Halley

Defendant

Curtis Francis Warren

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Asset Recovery / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim for recovery of seized monies as proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for a trial rather than summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Charrington's explanation for the origin of the seized funds to be wholly incredible and inconsistent with all contemporaneous evidence, including his own admissions and the absence of any reference to diamond sales in earlier correspondence. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted against Charrington. In relation to Warren, the court adjourned the matter to allow further investigation and disclosure of any documents that might support his claim to the funds.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted against Charrington; proceedings against Warren adjourned for further disclosure and investigation.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the claimant against Charrington for the recovery of the seized monies and proceeds of BMW sales.
  • Costs order against Charrington, not to be enforced without leave of the court, including costs reserved.