Glatt, R. v

Glatt, R. v

Section 74(4) does not apply to the assessment of benefit under s.71(4) in the manner submitted by the appellant; Glatt obtained property within the meaning of s.71(4) by exercising control over companies and assets for Martin, and the value is its market value. However, the legislative purpose of a confiscation order is not fulfilled in this case, as Glatt did not personally profit and has already suffered significant penalties. The judge erred in directing that discretion must be exercised to impose the maximum order; the confiscation order is set aside and no order is made.

Parties
Appellant: Louis Glatt; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside; no order made against Glatt.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit From Crime, Valuation of Property, Legislative Policy, Discretion in Sentencing
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Confiscation Orders Benefit From Crime Valuation of Property Legislative Policy Discretion in Sentencing

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 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Glatt

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the benefit obtained by Glatt had any value for the purposes of a confiscation order under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in exercising discretion to impose the confiscation order
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'obtains' and 'value' under sections 71(4) and 74(4)-(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

Section 74(4) does not apply to the assessment of benefit under s.71(4) in the manner submitted by the appellant; Glatt obtained property within the meaning of s.71(4) by exercising control over companies and assets for Martin, and the value is its market value. However, the legislative purpose of a confiscation order is not fulfilled in this case, as Glatt did not personally profit and has already suffered significant penalties. The judge erred in directing that discretion must be exercised to impose the maximum order; the confiscation order is set aside and no order is made.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; confiscation order set aside; no order made against Glatt.

Orders

  • The confiscation order in the sum of £3,676,508.50 against Louis Glatt is set aside.
  • No confiscation order is made against Louis Glatt.