Assets Recovery Agency v Singh

Assets Recovery Agency v Singh

Section 308(9) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 only excludes property from recovery if there is an extant confiscation order; since the order against Mr. Singh was quashed, the property remains recoverable. Section 308(1) does not apply as the solicitors had notice before any disposal. There was no breach of Article 6 ECHR as the civil proceedings are distinct and any delay was not unreasonable. The non-disclosure at the ex parte application was innocent and not material enough to justify discharge of the interim receiving order.

Parties
Claimant: Director of the Assets Recovery Agency; Defendant: Satnam Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Application (assets Recovery) / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Claim and Discharge Interim Receiving Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Confiscation Orders, Interim Receiving Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Human Rights (article 6 Echr)
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Recovery Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Interim Receiving Orders Disclosure Obligations Human Rights (article 6 Echr)

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of the Assets Recovery Agency

Claimant

Satnam Singh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application (assets Recovery) / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Claim and Discharge Interim Receiving Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property previously subject to a quashed confiscation order is 'recoverable property' under section 304 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out under section 308(9) or 308(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of Article 6 ECHR due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

Section 308(9) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 only excludes property from recovery if there is an extant confiscation order; since the order against Mr. Singh was quashed, the property remains recoverable. Section 308(1) does not apply as the solicitors had notice before any disposal. There was no breach of Article 6 ECHR as the civil proceedings are distinct and any delay was not unreasonable. The non-disclosure at the ex parte application was innocent and not material enough to justify discharge of the interim receiving order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to strike out the claim is dismissed
  • Application to discharge the interim receiving order is dismissed