5 St Andrew's Hill

9 Experts

Clear all filter
David McNeill

5 St Andrew's Hill

Gary Pons

5 St Andrew's Hill

John McNamara

5 St Andrew's Hill

Kevin Dent

5 St Andrew's Hill

Mark Cotter

5 St Andrew's Hill

Sarah Wood

5 St Andrew's Hill

2 Contributions by 5 St Andrew's Hill Experts

Magistrates’ court freezing and forfeiture of bank account monies under POCA 2002: AFOs, AFNs, variations, victims’ rights, appeals and compensation
PRACTICE NOTES
Background—the creation of the powers Chapter 3B, Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), titled ‘Forfeiture of money held in bank and building society accounts’, sets out the mechanism for detaining and forfeiting money in bank accounts. In brief, it enables applications for: account freezing orders (AFOs) over funds in bank accounts requests to vary or discharge AFOs a streamlined process to issue a forfeiture notice account forfeiture orders the involvement of victims and other owners appeals concerning forfeiture decisions applications for compensation These applications are heard in the magistrates’ court. They are self‑contained proceedings, separate and independent from any related criminal case. The process is governed by the Magistrates’ Courts (Freezing and Forfeiture of Money in Bank and Building Society Accounts) Rules 2017, SI 2017/1297. Civil recovery and cash forfeiture Although courts have handled cash forfeiture applications since the Criminal Justice (International Co‑operation) Act 1990, POCA 2002
Corporate Crime
POCA 2002 confiscation and matrimonial finance: s10A determinations, tainted gifts, priority between courts, CPS intervention and disclosure issues (England and Wales)
PRACTICE NOTES
Competing matrimonial claims—the issue Since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) came into force, a single court and a single judge can no longer determine overlapping claims between the state, operating through the confiscation framework, and a spouse pursuing matrimonial relief under the Matrimonial Cause Act 1973 (MCA 1973). This marks a departure from the earlier schemes—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994—under which one judge could hear both applications and decide the issues arising in each set of proceedings. The procedural starting point was highlighted in Webber v Webber, where a consent order transferring the family case to the High Court, to be tried by a judge experienced in both jurisdictions, was set aside because that approach has no footing under POCA 2002; unlike the former regimes, the Crown Court now has carriage of all elements of the
Corporate Crime
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.