Adams, In the matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin) (11 August 2014)

Adams, In the matter of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 [2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin) (11 August 2014)

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show, on the balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate to pay the outstanding confiscation order. The court found inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and insufficient credible evidence regarding the applicant's and his wife's finances, and was not satisfied that there were no further assets or that the applicant had suffered a genuine change in financial circumstances since the confiscation order.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2639 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Terence George Adams; Respondent: Crown (CPS)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate of Inadequacy (criminal Confiscation) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 83 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Certificate of Inadequacy, Hidden Assets, Burden of Proof, Financial Reporting Orders
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Confiscation Orders Certificate of Inadequacy Hidden Assets Burden of Proof Financial Reporting Orders

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence George Adams

Applicant/defendant

Crown (CPS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Certificate of Inadequacy (criminal Confiscation) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 83 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's realisable property is inadequate for payment of the outstanding confiscation order under Section 83 Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can challenge the original finding of realisable assets in the confiscation order
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has discharged the burden of proof to show inadequacy of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show, on the balance of probabilities, that his realisable property is inadequate to pay the outstanding confiscation order. The court found inconsistencies, lack of transparency, and insufficient credible evidence regarding the applicant's and his wife's finances, and was not satisfied that there were no further assets or that the applicant had suffered a genuine change in financial circumstances since the confiscation order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No Certificate of Inadequacy issued
  • Applicant remains liable for the outstanding balance of the confiscation order