Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v May & Anor

Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v May & Anor

The flat at 85 Dundee Wharf is realisable property of Mr May for purposes of the confiscation order. The Prosecutor has shown on balance that Mr May negotiated the purchase, provided funds via Valeo, and retained beneficial ownership. Larkfield's claim fails as there is insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Mr May intended to retain beneficial interest, and statutory powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 override company and trust law protections.

Parties
Prosecutor: Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office; Defendant: Raymond George May; 1st Claimant: Denise May; 2nd Claimant: George Frederick May; 3rd Claimant: Larkfield Limited; Enforcement Receiver: Brandon John Barnes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Third Party Claim Under Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Larkfield's claim fails; flat is realisable property of Mr May.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Beneficial Ownership, Piercing Corporate Veil, Resulting Trusts, Sham Trusts
Criminal Law Trusts and Equity Company Law Confiscation Orders Beneficial Ownership Piercing Corporate Veil Resulting Trusts Sham Trusts

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Prosecutor

Raymond George May

Defendant

Denise May

1st Claimant

George Frederick May

2nd Claimant

Larkfield Limited

3rd Claimant

Brandon John Barnes

Enforcement Receiver

Procedural Posture

Third Party Claim Under Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Larkfield Limited is the beneficial owner of the flat at 85 Dundee Wharf or holds it for Mr May
  2. 2 Whether the flat is realisable property for purposes of the confiscation order against Mr May
  3. 3 Whether the Prosecutor can pierce the corporate veil or rely on sham trust principles

Ratio Decidendi

The flat at 85 Dundee Wharf is realisable property of Mr May for purposes of the confiscation order. The Prosecutor has shown on balance that Mr May negotiated the purchase, provided funds via Valeo, and retained beneficial ownership. Larkfield's claim fails as there is insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Mr May intended to retain beneficial interest, and statutory powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 override company and trust law protections.

Court Disposition

Larkfield's claim fails; flat is realisable property of Mr May.

Orders

  • Flat at 85 Dundee Wharf declared realisable property of Mr May for purposes of confiscation order.
  • Counsel to supply corrections and draft order before hand-down.