Mohammed Ameen Mirza against The Lord Advocate and another (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 31 (27 March 2026)

Mohammed Ameen Mirza against The Lord Advocate and another (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 31 (27 March 2026)

The pursuer failed to plead a prima facie case that the seizure or forfeiture proceedings were unlawful or an abuse of process. The appropriate forum for challenging the seizure is by judicial review or in the sheriff court forfeiture proceedings. The balance of convenience and public interest in preventing dissipation of potentially criminal proceeds outweighs any prejudice to the pursuer. The court has no basis to interfere with the ongoing forfeiture proceedings or to grant interim possession of the cash.

Citation
[2026] CSOH 31
Parties
Pursuer: Mohammed Ameen Mirza; First Defender: The Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, The Lord Advocate; Second Defender: The Rt Hon Catherine Smith KC, The Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (motion for Interim Order) / Interlocutory (motion for Interim Order Pending Forfeiture Proceedings)
Outcome
Pursuer's motion for interim order refused.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Forfeiture of Cash, Interim Possession Orders, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Seizure of Property
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Forfeiture of Cash Interim Possession Orders Abuse of Process Judicial Review +1 more

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

Parties

Mohammed Ameen Mirza

Pursuer

The Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, The Lord Advocate

First Defender

The Rt Hon Catherine Smith KC, The Advocate General for Scotland

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (motion for Interim Order) / Interlocutory (motion for Interim Order Pending Forfeiture Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continued retention of cash by the defenders after the end of criminal proceedings was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent seizure of the cash under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was valid
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer is entitled to interim possession of the cash pending forfeiture proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to plead a prima facie case that the seizure or forfeiture proceedings were unlawful or an abuse of process. The appropriate forum for challenging the seizure is by judicial review or in the sheriff court forfeiture proceedings. The balance of convenience and public interest in preventing dissipation of potentially criminal proceeds outweighs any prejudice to the pursuer. The court has no basis to interfere with the ongoing forfeiture proceedings or to grant interim possession of the cash.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's motion for interim order refused.

Orders

  • Motion for interim order for interim possession of cash refused.