Kausar, R v

Kausar, R v

The appellant should not have been convicted under section 329(1)(a) because the consideration given for the mortgage advance was adequate, and the prosecution failed to prove otherwise. The conviction was therefore quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Rahila Kausar; Respondent: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Mortgage Fraud, Adequate Consideration
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Mortgage Fraud Adequate Consideration

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahila Kausar

Appellant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the appellant acquired criminal property within the meaning of section 329(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 whether the property was acquired for inadequate consideration
  3. 3 whether a promise to repay a mortgage constitutes adequate consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant should not have been convicted under section 329(1)(a) because the consideration given for the mortgage advance was adequate, and the prosecution failed to prove otherwise. The conviction was therefore quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • defendant's costs order made in favour of the accused pursuant to section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act