R v Ahmad and another

R v Ahmad and another

Where property is obtained as a result of a joint criminal enterprise, each principal conspirator may be found to have obtained the whole property for the purposes of confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The confiscation order should be made for the whole value of the benefit against each defendant,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondents: Ahmad and another; Appellants: Fields and others; Respondent: R; Intervener: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Asset Recovery, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Valuation of Criminal Benefit
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Human Rights Confiscation Orders Joint Criminal Enterprise Asset Recovery Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Valuation of Criminal Benefit

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

Parties

R

Appellant

Ahmad and another

Respondents

Fields and others

Appellants

R

Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should courts assess and apportion confiscation orders where property is obtained jointly by multiple defendants in a criminal enterprise?
  2. 2 Does the enforcement of multiple confiscation orders for the same joint benefit violate Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1)?

Ratio Decidendi

Where property is obtained as a result of a joint criminal enterprise, each principal conspirator may be found to have obtained the whole property for the purposes of confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The confiscation order should be made for the whole value of the benefit against each defendant, but enforcement must be limited so that the state does not recover the same proceeds more than once, in compliance with A1P1 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part

Orders

  • Confiscation orders against each defendant to be amended to provide that enforcement is not to proceed to the extent that a sum has been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order in relation to the same joint benefit.