Takkar v R.

Takkar v R.

The VAT evaded constituted a benefit under POCA, and the appellant had a criminal lifestyle as the offences spanned more than six months and he benefited from them. The statutory assumptions applied, and the appellant failed to rebut them with evidence. The confiscation order was justified and not unfair or disproportionate.

Parties
Appellant: Harjit Singh Takkar; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Criminal Lifestyle, Pecuniary Advantage, VAT Fraud, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Criminal Lifestyle Pecuniary Advantage VAT Fraud 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harjit Singh Takkar

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the VAT evaded constituted a benefit for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had a 'criminal lifestyle' under section 75(2)(c) POCA
  3. 3 Whether the benefit figure should be limited to VAT or include the value of goods

Ratio Decidendi

The VAT evaded constituted a benefit under POCA, and the appellant had a criminal lifestyle as the offences spanned more than six months and he benefited from them. The statutory assumptions applied, and the appellant failed to rebut them with evidence. The confiscation order was justified and not unfair or disproportionate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order in the sum of £5,320,420 upheld
  • Default term of 10 years' imprisonment to be served consecutively to the substantive sentence