WB v R

WB v R

The judge's appearance of bias and confusion in calculation rendered the original decision unsafe, but upon rehearing all evidence, the statutory assumptions were properly applied as the appellant failed to prove lawful origin of the unexplained funds. The confiscation order stands as the benefit from criminal conduct exceeded the amount ordered.

Parties
Appellant: W B; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Statutory Assumptions, Money Laundering, Judicial Bias, Unexplained Wealth, Benefit From Criminal Conduct
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Orders Statutory Assumptions Money Laundering Judicial Bias Unexplained Wealth Benefit From Criminal Conduct

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W B

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge was biased or gave the appearance of bias
  2. 2 Whether the statutory assumptions under section 72AA should be applied to unexplained transfers
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving lawful origin of funds

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's appearance of bias and confusion in calculation rendered the original decision unsafe, but upon rehearing all evidence, the statutory assumptions were properly applied as the appellant failed to prove lawful origin of the unexplained funds. The confiscation order stands as the benefit from criminal conduct exceeded the amount ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Confiscation order of £1,566,911 stands
  • Appellant to pay prosecution costs of £71,592.57