Stannard, R. v

Stannard, R. v

The appellant benefited from the fraudulent scheme by controlling the companies and trusts involved, making him liable for the confiscation order. The assets, including those held via trusts and gifts, were realisable property under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The corporate veil was appropriately lifted due to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: Michael Richard Stannard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Cheating the Public Revenue, Confiscation Orders, Corporate Veil, Trusts and Beneficial Ownership
Criminal Law Revenue Law Cheating the Public Revenue Confiscation Orders Corporate Veil Trusts and Beneficial Ownership

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 21
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Michael Richard Stannard

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant benefited as a result of or in connection with the offences
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order should be quashed or reduced based on realisable assets
  3. 3 Whether assets held via trusts or third parties are realisable property

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant benefited from the fraudulent scheme by controlling the companies and trusts involved, making him liable for the confiscation order. The assets, including those held via trusts and gifts, were realisable property under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The corporate veil was appropriately lifted due to the appellant's control and fraudulent conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order in the sum of £1,678,954 upheld
  • Appellant remains liable for four years imprisonment consecutive in default of payment