Waya, R v (Rev 1)

Waya, R v (Rev 1)

The correct benefit for confiscation purposes is the proportion of the property value represented by the tainted mortgage advance, not the entire property value. The appellant obtained property as a result of criminal conduct, and the value of the benefit is 60% of the market value at the time of the confiscation order.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Terry Waya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Mortgage Fraud, Valuation of Property Obtained by Crime
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Benefit From Criminal Conduct Mortgage Fraud Valuation of Property Obtained by Crime

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

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Terry Waya

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 apply to cases where a mortgage advance is obtained by deception?
  2. 2 What is the correct method for valuing the benefit obtained from criminal conduct in such cases?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct benefit for confiscation purposes is the proportion of the property value represented by the tainted mortgage advance, not the entire property value. The appellant obtained property as a result of criminal conduct, and the value of the benefit is 60% of the market value at the time of the confiscation order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The confiscation order is reduced from £1,540,000 to £1,110,000.