Dilenardo & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1672 (18 December 2025)

Dilenardo & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1672 (18 December 2025)

The Crown Court correctly exercised its discretion under s.50 Proceeds of Crime Act to appoint a receiver over 5 St Chads Grove, as the confiscation order remained unsatisfied, the procedural requirements were met, and no grounds were established for setting aside the order. The Applicants' arguments regarding representation, proportionality, tenant's rights, and fresh evidence did not afford grounds for appeal. The interests of the Second Applicant are protected by the receivership process, and the mortgage company's agreement ensures no double recovery. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1672
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Applicant: Peter Adrian Dilenardo; Applicant: Nicola Anne Dilenardo
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Receivership Order Under S.65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Receivership, Confiscation Order Enforcement, Beneficial Interest Determination, Proportionality, Right to Consolidate, Fair Hearing, Fresh Evidence, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Property Law Receivership Confiscation Order Enforcement Beneficial Interest Determination Proportionality +4 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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Peter Adrian Dilenardo

Applicant

Nicola Anne Dilenardo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Receivership Order Under S.65 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in appointing a receiver over 5 St Chads Grove under s.50 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the order was disproportionate and failed to consider protected rights and interests
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted under s.23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court correctly exercised its discretion under s.50 Proceeds of Crime Act to appoint a receiver over 5 St Chads Grove, as the confiscation order remained unsatisfied, the procedural requirements were met, and no grounds were established for setting aside the order. The Applicants' arguments regarding representation, proportionality, tenant's rights, and fresh evidence did not afford grounds for appeal. The interests of the Second Applicant are protected by the receivership process, and the mortgage company's agreement ensures no double recovery. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • application for extension of time to vacate property refused
  • application to certify point of law of general public importance refused