Ernest, R v

Ernest, R v

The Crown Court erred in including expenditure based on a cost of living index as part of the benefit figure, as the prosecution failed to establish that such expenditure was not already accounted for in the monies in the bank accounts. The correct benefit figure is the sum transferred into the bank accounts, and the recoverable amount is equal to that benefit, as the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving lower available assets.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Sam Ernest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Proceeds of Crime, Fraud, Calculation of Benefit, Statutory Assumptions
Criminal Law Confiscation Orders Proceeds of Crime Fraud Calculation of Benefit Statutory Assumptions

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Sam Ernest

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in calculating the amount of benefit obtained by the Appellant from his general criminal conduct
  2. 2 Whether legitimate business transactions and related expenses should be excluded from the benefit figure
  3. 3 Whether the Crown Court erred in including expenditure based on a cost of living index

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown Court erred in including expenditure based on a cost of living index as part of the benefit figure, as the prosecution failed to establish that such expenditure was not already accounted for in the monies in the bank accounts. The correct benefit figure is the sum transferred into the bank accounts, and the recoverable amount is equal to that benefit, as the Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving lower available assets.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Confiscation order quashed to the extent that it orders payment of £308,380.29; substituted with £209,280.29 as the amount to be paid, the value of the benefit, and the available amount.
  • Time for payment remains unchanged: payment by 21 June 2014.