Reynolds & Ors, R, v

Reynolds & Ors, R, v

The correct valuation of criminal benefit in this case is the profit made by GPL on its contracts with LCC, calculated as turnover less expenses and VAT, not merely the overcharged amount. All transactions were tainted by the abuse of trust and conflict of interest, justifying the profit-based approach. Confiscation orders must be made for the full joint benefit against each respondent, with enforcement limited to prevent double recovery and subject to the available amount for each respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Stephen Reynolds; Respondent: Anna Maria Reynolds; Respondent: Valerie Farnish; Respondent: Malcolm Farnish
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Valuation of Criminal Benefit, Enforcement of Confiscation Orders, Public Sector Corruption
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Valuation of Criminal Benefit Enforcement of Confiscation Orders Public Sector Corruption

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Stephen Reynolds

Respondent

Anna Maria Reynolds

Respondent

Valerie Farnish

Respondent

Malcolm Farnish

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct valuation of criminal benefit for confiscation orders in cases involving public sector corruption and tainted contracts?
  2. 2 How should enforcement of joint benefit confiscation orders be structured among multiple respondents?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct valuation of criminal benefit in this case is the profit made by GPL on its contracts with LCC, calculated as turnover less expenses and VAT, not merely the overcharged amount. All transactions were tainted by the abuse of trust and conflict of interest, justifying the profit-based approach. Confiscation orders must be made for the full joint benefit against each respondent, with enforcement limited to prevent double recovery and subject to the available amount for each respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Confiscation orders set at £253,421.79 against each respondent, subject to enforcement not exceeding the available amount for each respondent and to prevent double recovery.
  • Parties to agree available amount for each respondent within 14 days, failing which the issue is remitted to the Crown Court.