Fields & Ors v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 2042 (14 November 2013)

Fields & Ors v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 2042 (14 November 2013)

In cases where conspirators are found to have jointly obtained the benefit of criminal conduct, each is liable for the full value of the benefit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There is no legal basis for apportioning the benefit or the recoverable amount between them, and proportionality does not require apportionment in such cases. The judge's findings on available amounts were justified by the evidence and the burden of proof was not discharged by the appellants.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 2042
Parties
Appellant: Michael Fields; Appellant: Mitesh Sanghani; Appellant: Karamjit Sagoo; Appellant: Wasim Rajput; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Confiscation Orders
Outcome
Appeals dismissed in respect of Sanghani, Sagoo, and Rajput; appeal allowed in part for Fields to reduce the confiscation order to exclude criminal lifestyle provisions.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Joint Benefit, Apportionment, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Proportionality, Available Amount, Benefit Assessment
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Joint Benefit Apportionment Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Proportionality Available Amount +1 more

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

Parties

Michael Fields

Appellant

Mitesh Sanghani

Appellant

Karamjit Sagoo

Appellant

Wasim Rajput

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Confiscation Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, joint conspirators are each liable for the full value of jointly obtained benefit or only a rateable share
  2. 2 Whether confiscation orders should be apportioned between conspirators to avoid disproportionate outcomes
  3. 3 Whether the available amount was properly assessed for each appellant

Ratio Decidendi

In cases where conspirators are found to have jointly obtained the benefit of criminal conduct, each is liable for the full value of the benefit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There is no legal basis for apportioning the benefit or the recoverable amount between them, and proportionality does not require apportionment in such cases. The judge's findings on available amounts were justified by the evidence and the burden of proof was not discharged by the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed in respect of Sanghani, Sagoo, and Rajput; appeal allowed in part for Fields to reduce the confiscation order to exclude criminal lifestyle provisions.

Orders

  • Confiscation order against Fields reduced to £1,565,945; otherwise, all confiscation orders affirmed.