Gor v R

Gor v R

The confiscation order was excessive to the extent that it included sums received by the appellant's wife without sufficient evidence she was a nominee, and included the entirety of rental income from a property where only a proportion was tainted. The statutory assumptions applied to the properties as the appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kaushikial Gor; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order Following Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Statutory Assumptions, Mortgage Fraud, Rental Income, Sham Transactions
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Benefit From Criminal Conduct Statutory Assumptions Mortgage Fraud Rental Income Sham Transactions

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Kaushikial Gor

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order Following Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether student fees received were proceeds of criminal conduct
  2. 2 Whether sums received by appellant's wife were attributable to appellant
  3. 3 Whether properties were held by appellant after conviction and subject to confiscation

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was excessive to the extent that it included sums received by the appellant's wife without sufficient evidence she was a nominee, and included the entirety of rental income from a property where only a proportion was tainted. The statutory assumptions applied to the properties as the appellant had not genuinely divested his interests. Open market value was the correct basis for valuation. The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the confiscation order accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Confiscation order reduced from £927,356.35 to £767,233.59
  • Benefit figure reduced by £160,122.76 to £767,233.59