Clark & Anor v R

Clark & Anor v R

The sums received by the applicants from the sale of Canister Hall and the payment from Danny Downs were obtained as a result of or in connection with criminal conduct, and thus constitute criminal benefit under POCA. The statutory assumptions apply, and the confiscation order is proportionate.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Clark; Appellant: Julie Clark; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence (confiscation Order)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Proceeds of Crime, Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Mortgage Fraud
Criminal Law Confiscation Order Proceeds of Crime Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Mortgage Fraud

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Clark

Appellant

Julie Clark

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence (confiscation Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants benefited from criminal conduct for purposes of confiscation order
  2. 2 Proper calculation of benefit under Proceeds of Crime Act
  3. 3 Application of statutory assumptions under POCA

Ratio Decidendi

The sums received by the applicants from the sale of Canister Hall and the payment from Danny Downs were obtained as a result of or in connection with criminal conduct, and thus constitute criminal benefit under POCA. The statutory assumptions apply, and the confiscation order is proportionate.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • applications for permission to appeal against confiscation order refused