Crown Prosecution Service v G

Crown Prosecution Service v G

There is no good arguable case for treating the assets of Prolink Holdings Limited or Powervale Limited as the realisable property of G. The circumstances do not justify lifting the corporate veil, as the companies were not used as a façade for criminal activity, the loan was openly recorded, and there was no impropriety or dishonesty by the other directors. Mere injection of criminally-derived funds into a company is insufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil.

Parties
Claimant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: G; Applicant: Derek Croft; Affected Company: Prolink Holdings Limited; Affected Company: Powervale Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order (criminal Proceeds) / Ruling on Applications to Vary/discharge Restraint Order
Outcome
Relevant parts of the restraint order discharged; G restrained from dealing with his shareholding and loan rights in Prolink; no discharge for alleged disclosure failures.
Legal Topics
Restraint Orders, Money Laundering, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Realisable Property, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Company Law Restraint Orders Money Laundering Piercing the Corporate Veil Realisable Property Disclosure Obligations

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

G

Defendant

Derek Croft

Applicant

Prolink Holdings Limited

Affected Company

Powervale Limited

Affected Company

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order (criminal Proceeds) / Ruling on Applications to Vary/discharge Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assets of Powervale Limited and Prolink Holdings Limited can be treated as the realisable property of G by lifting the corporate veil under the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the restraint order should be maintained, varied, or discharged in relation to the companies' assets
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure of full and frank disclosure by the Crown justifying discharge of the order

Ratio Decidendi

There is no good arguable case for treating the assets of Prolink Holdings Limited or Powervale Limited as the realisable property of G. The circumstances do not justify lifting the corporate veil, as the companies were not used as a façade for criminal activity, the loan was openly recorded, and there was no impropriety or dishonesty by the other directors. Mere injection of criminally-derived funds into a company is insufficient to justify piercing the corporate veil.

Court Disposition

Relevant parts of the restraint order discharged; G restrained from dealing with his shareholding and loan rights in Prolink; no discharge for alleged disclosure failures.

Orders

  • Discharge of restraint order as it relates to the assets of Prolink Holdings Limited and Powervale Limited.
  • Restraint maintained over G's shareholding in Prolink and his rights under the £200,000 loan.