K, R. v

K, R. v

Where there is evidence of systematic cheating of the Revenue, undeclared takings from a legitimate business can represent the fruits of criminal conduct and constitute 'criminal property' under POCA. The judge erred in ruling that such funds could not be criminal property solely because they originated from legitimate trading. The jury should have been allowed to consider whether the funds were criminal property based on the evidence of cheating the Revenue.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: I K
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
Prosecution appeal allowed; judge's ruling set aside in relation to counts 1 and 2 as it affects IK.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime, Tax Evasion, Cheating the Revenue, Interpretation of 'criminal Property' Under POCA
Criminal Law Money Laundering Proceeds of Crime Tax Evasion Cheating the Revenue Interpretation of 'criminal Property' Under POCA

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

I K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against a Ruling of No Case to Answer Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceeds of cheating the Revenue can amount to 'criminal property' under section 340(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the trade is legitimate
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to rule there was no case to answer on money laundering counts where the provenance of funds was not established

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is evidence of systematic cheating of the Revenue, undeclared takings from a legitimate business can represent the fruits of criminal conduct and constitute 'criminal property' under POCA. The judge erred in ruling that such funds could not be criminal property solely because they originated from legitimate trading. The jury should have been allowed to consider whether the funds were criminal property based on the evidence of cheating the Revenue.

Court Disposition

Prosecution appeal allowed; judge's ruling set aside in relation to counts 1 and 2 as it affects IK.

Orders

  • Counts 1 and 2 to proceed against IK; jury to consider whether funds constitute criminal property.