Crisp & Anor, R. v

Crisp & Anor, R. v

Forfeited cash under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not to be deducted from the benefit figure for confiscation purposes. The forfeiture proceedings are not proceedings by a victim for loss sustained in connection with the conduct, and section 6(6) does not apply. There is no double recovery or...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: David Walter Crisp; Respondent: Charles Frederick Berry
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Confiscation Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Double Recovery, Forfeiture of Assets, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Double Recovery Forfeiture of Assets Benefit From Criminal Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

David Walter Crisp

Respondent

Charles Frederick Berry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Confiscation Orders Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cash forfeited under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be deducted from the benefit figure for confiscation purposes
  2. 2 Whether section 6(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 applies to prevent double recovery in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the forfeiture proceedings constituted proceedings by a victim for loss sustained in connection with the conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Forfeited cash under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is not to be deducted from the benefit figure for confiscation purposes. The forfeiture proceedings are not proceedings by a victim for loss sustained in connection with the conduct, and section 6(6) does not apply. There is no double recovery or abuse of process in pursuing both confiscation and forfeiture proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Confiscation orders to be made for the full benefit figures assessed against each respondent; precise orders to be determined after hearing counsel.