Warwick, R v [2013] NICA 13 (15 March 2013)

Warwick, R v [2013] NICA 13 (15 March 2013)

The appellant obtained monies held in the accounts as a result of or in connection with the commission of relevant offences, was not a mere nominee or custodian, and thus benefited for the purposes of confiscation. The confiscation order was not disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Citation
[2013] NICA 13
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant/defendant: Leonard Henry Warwick
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Money Laundering, Benefit From Crime, Proportionality, Nominee Accounts
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Confiscation Order Money Laundering Benefit From Crime Proportionality Nominee Accounts

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

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Leonard Henry Warwick

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant benefited from criminal conduct for the purposes of a confiscation order
  2. 2 Whether the confiscation order was disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant obtained monies held in the accounts as a result of or in connection with the commission of relevant offences, was not a mere nominee or custodian, and thus benefited for the purposes of confiscation. The confiscation order was not disproportionate under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Confiscation order affirmed, reduced by £38,836 from the original sum