Surrey POCA Forum
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 to Tue, 03 May 2011
Location: Surrey Trading Standards Offices
We would like to invite you to the Surrey POCA Forum on 4th May.
The forum will be held at Surrey Trading Standards Office (Omnibus, Lesbourne Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 7JA)
The proposed agenda for the forum includes:
-
Case Law round-up. A host of new reported cases on various topics, including Steed, Akhtar, Windsor & others, Iqbal.
-
Judge watch.
-
Report from Partnership Conference of Met Police held on 15th March 2011, including updates on position of ACPO and NPIA on POCA issues.
-
Reminder of Non-POCA avenues to deprive criminals of assets/tools of trade etc.
-
Local cases & trends.
This forum holds 2 Hours Free CPD
Please feel free to suggest any topics or local cases you would wish to discuss.
The usual refreshments, Pizza and networking will be provided.
To register please complete the form below or contact Chloe via email (chloe@12cp.co.uk) or (023) 8020 5758.
URGENT CASE LAW UPDATE:
For all those involved in cash forfeitures under S.298 POCA a new authority hot off the press does mean that a little more thought and evidence may need to be included in Form G and statements of information.
CAROL ANGUS v UNITED KINGDOM BORDER AGENCY [2011] EWHC 461 (Admin) Case stated, currently unreported but judgement delivered on 15th March 2011.
The issue: Does an officer [of a prosecuting authority] have to show in a case of cash forfeiture under S.298 POCA
1) that the property [Cash] seized was obtained through conduct of one of a number of different kinds, each of which would have been unlawful conduct? or
2) is it sufficient for the officer to point to criminal conduct of an unspecified kind [i.e. simply to rely on irresistable inferences that in the apparent absence of any legitimate income etc that cash must have derived from some unspecified criminal conduct of which there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence]?
THE RULING is YES to point 1 and NO to point 2. The Court has held that the effect of part 5 of POCA is to create a single regime for Civil recovery and that the principles in Ss.240, 241 and 242 apply to cash forfeiture as much as they do in pure Civil Recovery proceedings in the High Court. Therefore S.242 (2)(b) applies.
You do not need to prove a specific criminal offence but you do need to show on a balance of probabilties that the cash derived from one of a number of kinds of criminal activity.
In practice you will usually be able to put up a list and some evidence tending to suggest eg. 1) dealing in drugs or if not , 2) selling other illegal items such as handled property or counterfeit items or 3) benefit fraud by not declaring cash earnings or 4) cheat the Revenue by under declaring or failing to declare cash earnings.
ANWOIR which allows the test in question 2 above to be sufficient to prove an offence of Money Laundering was disregarded by the Court as being of limited effect in these circumstances. That may seem illogical in that there is a greater need for evidence albeit at a lower standard of proof in the cash forfeiture regime than in certain money laundering prosecutions.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Chloe.
We look forward to hearing from you.