Lifestyle meaning

This flowchart outlines the method for assessing whether or not a defendant possesses a criminal lifestyle, for the purposes of confiscation proceedings pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002...

This Flowchart outlines the process for determining whether an external suspicious activity report (SAR) must be submitted to the National Crime Agency (NCA). It also covers both relevant circumstances in which a member of staff: raises a concern, and files an internal SAR with the nominated officer See further Practice Notes: Making a SAR and obtaining a defence or consent, or for law firms Making a SAR and obtaining a defence or consent—law firms, and Precedent: Submitting a SAR—information gathering sheet for reporters...

A tribunal on 16 May 2025 confirmed that the NCA’s belief that Mohammed Butt and Mahfooz Begum obtained their income through money laundering stands as correct, and it upheld an earlier court’s decision. The authority said it had sufficient proof drawn from the couple’s lifestyle choices set against their publicly declared earnings. Butt was detained in 2012 on suspicion of money laundering linked to an organised crime group, the ruling noted. He was not charged because there was insufficient evidence, the tribunal added. By contrast, two of his brothers, as well as his two sons, were prosecuted and found guilty of money laundering and drug trafficking offences, according to the judgment...

Lifestyle Equities CV and Another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered its long‑awaited ruling on the appeal and cross‑appeals in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed, proceeding from Lord Justice Birss’s judgment in the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 675. Lord Leggatt wrote for the court, with Lords Kitchen, Lloyd‑Jones, Stephens and Richards agreeing. The judgment sets out a series of significant conclusions: Accessory liability (as a joint tortfeasor) in respect of a strict liability tort is not itself governed by the same strict standard. Conversely, an accessory must possess knowledge of the essential aspects of the tort to justify imposing joint liability on a person who has not themselves committed it. The identical test applies whether accessory liability is said to arise by procuring the tort or by participating in a common design with the primary tortfeasor. An account of profits sought from an accessory will therefore never...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Injunction granted against Craig Wright (Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v BTC Core) In High Court proceedings brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) against Craig Steven Wright, the court found squarely and decisively against Dr Wright’s assertions that he created Bitcoin as ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated the evidence was overwhelming and unequivocal: Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, did not act under the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011, did not devise the Bitcoin system, and did not write the early iterations of the Bitcoin software at all. The recently issued...

What is digital health? Digital health is a broad umbrella describing how information and communication technologies are used to enhance prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and the management of health conditions and lifestyle habits that influence wellbeing. Its rise reflects the coming together of healthcare and technology, and a move away from provider‑focused, ‘one size fits all’ delivery towards personalised, patient‑centred care. This Practice Note explores data protection considerations across three digital health use cases: Wearables Use of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical diagnostics Digital health records Unlike mobile health (mHealth), which is limited to care delivered via mobile devices, digital health is wider in scope. It encompasses modern care models such as digital therapeutics, telemedicine, digitised health systems and electronic health records, as well as AI, machine learning and data analytics. For more on mHealth, see Practice Notes: Digital health—regulation of mHealth apps and medical software and mHealth—data protection considerations. Digital health solutions can be applied at every stage...

Process for making confiscation orders in joint enterprise cases There is a three-stage method for calculating a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002): first, determine whether the defendant has benefited from the relevant criminal conduct second, establish the value, i.e. the quantification, of that benefit third, decide what amount is recoverable from the defendant See Practice Note: Confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This Practice Note outlines how the court approaches the question of benefit in confiscation proceedings arising from joint enterprise cases. For detailed guidance on assessing benefit more generally, see Practice Notes: Confiscation step 1: Does the defendant have a criminal lifestyle?, Confiscation step 2: Has the defendant benefited from relevant criminal conduct? and Determining the recoverable amount (benefit and available amount) under POCA 2002. The leading authority on joint enterprise cases is the Supreme Court’s judgment in R v Ahmad; R v Fields, discussed in News Analysis: Confiscation orders and joint...

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in R v Waya Following the Supreme Court ruling in R v Waya, section 6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) was revised to insert the words: ‘Paragraph (b) applies only if, or to the extent that, it would not be disproportionate to require the defendant to pay the recoverable amount.’ This placed on a statutory footing the requirement that confiscation orders be proportionate. A prosecutor is not obliged to commence confiscation proceedings; rather, doing so is a matter of discretion. If the prosecutor does not invite the court to proceed to confiscation, the court likewise retains a discretion whether to embark on confiscation proceedings, provided the remaining statutory conditions are satisfied. The judgment in R v Andrewes confirms that prosecutors, at the very least, should build an assessment of proportionality into the decision whether to ask the court to proceed to confiscation. See News Analysis: Ensuring proportionality in confiscation proceedings (R v Andrewes). There are no statutory...