Crown Prosecution Service v G [2010] EWHC 1117 (Admin) (21 May 2010)

Crown Prosecution Service v G [2010] EWHC 1117 (Admin) (21 May 2010)

There is no good arguable case for treating the corporate assets of Prolink or Powervale Limited as the realisable property of G. The mere injection of criminally-derived monies into a legitimate business, openly recorded, does not justify lifting the corporate veil or maintaining a restraint order over company assets. The relevant parts of the restraint order must be discharged.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1117 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant: G
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order Under Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Post Charge, Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order
Outcome
Relevant parts of the restraint order discharged; G remains restrained from dealing with his shareholding and loan rights in Prolink.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Restraint Orders, Corporate Veil, Realisable Property, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Company Law Money Laundering Restraint Orders 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown Prosecution Service

Claimant

G

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order Under Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Post Charge, Application to Vary/discharge Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assets of Powervale Limited and Prolink Holdings Limited can be treated as realisable property of G by lifting the corporate veil
  2. 2 Whether the restraint order should be maintained over company 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 corporate assets of Prolink or Powervale Limited as the realisable property of G. The mere injection of criminally-derived monies into a legitimate business, openly recorded, does not justify lifting the corporate veil or maintaining a restraint order over company assets. The relevant parts of the restraint order must be discharged.

Court Disposition

Relevant parts of the restraint order discharged; G remains restrained from dealing with his shareholding and loan rights in Prolink.

Orders

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