restraint order meaning

Under section 14 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002), the court will ordinarily impose a confiscation order before passing sentence on the defendant, yet it can defer the confiscation proceedings for a defined period of up to two years from the date of conviction-see Practice Note: Postponement of confiscation proceedings. If proceedings are postponed, the court will typically direct a timetable for the exchange of material required by POCA 2002 (frequently referred to as the confiscation timetable). The outline below identifies the documents exchanged for these purposes, the point at which they are required, and key points for practitioners to bear in mind when reviewing them. Document: Required where: Commentary Information by defendant in response to an order under POCA 2002, s 18 Where the court proceeds to make a confiscation order under POCA 2002, s 6(3)(a) (the prosecutor seeks an order) or POCA 2002, s 6(3)(b) (the court considers it proper to make an order), or where the court is deciding whether to...

Appointment of Receivers The Crown Court may, on the prosecutor’s application, appoint a receiver over a defendant’s realisable property where a confiscation order remains unsatisfied and is not under appeal. The court may grant the receiver the following powers in respect of that realisable property: power to take possession of the property power to manage or otherwise deal with the property, after hearing representations from those holding it power to realise the property, in such manner as the court directs, after hearing representations from those holding it power to commence, continue or defend any legal proceedings concerning the property Where the defendant’s realisable interest in the property is in dispute, it is not required that the property be shown to be the defendant’s proven realisable property (see eg Re Smith)...

In this issue: Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Appeals and judicial review Sentencing Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Other corporate crime updates LexTalk®Corporate Crime: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Decision to prosecute and alternatives to prosecution Deferred Prosecution Agreements—an ‘expiry date’ or a ‘best before’? (Guralp Systems Ltd v Serious Fraud Office) The statutory framework for Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) requires an expiry date within every DPA, mandates that any breach application is made while the DPA remains in force, and provides that where a DPA lasts until its expiry, the proceedings are to be discontinued. In this case, the DPA’s terms specified effectiveness for...

Umbrella Care Ltd (in liquidation) v Raja; Brittain and another v Raja (a bankrupt) [2024] EWHC 1973 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Insolvency practitioners, acting in varied capacities—here as liquidator of a collapsed company and as trustee in bankruptcy of the director who committed fraud on HMRC via that company—regularly encounter serious non-cooperation. Where the obstruction is acute and there is a genuine risk the respondent may abscond and not return, the court can: Order the respondent’s arrest Impose restrictions preventing departure from the jurisdiction Direct that the respondent’s passport be held by the applicant’s solicitors until issues are concluded This delivers a clear warning to those obliged to assist IPs and obey court orders—engage fully or risk losing the ability to travel overseas. However, the character and persistence of the non-cooperation are decisive. If there is no live court process that a passport order would genuinely support, this most stringent remedy is unlikely to be...

Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd [2025] EWHC 3173 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? For the purposes of CJCA 2015, s 57, a claim seeking damages for anxiety stemming from harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is to be treated as a personal injury claim. Consequently, where such a claim is held to be fundamentally dishonest, it must be dismissed unless the court is persuaded that dismissal would lead to substantial injustice. Where fundamental dishonesty is established, the court may: dismiss the whole claim, including components to which no dishonesty is attributed award indemnity costs disapply QOCS protection in respect of enforcement make adverse costs orders for hopeless or abusive appeal conduct The judgment also underlines that persisting with meritless grounds of appeal, particularly in an undisciplined fashion involving repeated applications and iterative documents, can warrant both adverse costs orders and the imposition of a civil restraint order. Finally, lawyers who provide...

Following a series of court decisions and influential commentary, it is now widely accepted that, under English law, cryptoassets are neither things in possession nor things in action; instead, they comprise a distinct third form of property as data objects. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) establishes, in broad terms, two routes for the realisation of criminal proceeds: a conviction-based restraint and confiscation regime under POCA 2002, Pt 2, criminal in character and largely managed by the criminal courts under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909; and a non-conviction based asset recovery regime under POCA 2002, Pt 5, operating within the civil jurisdiction. In England and Wales, at a high level, this results in: proceedings before the magistrates’ court, in its civil jurisdiction, for the freezing and forfeiture of (i) cash, (ii) high value personal property, and (iii) money in accounts held with financial institutions (FIs); and proceedings before the High Court for a...

This Practice Note explores in detail how restraint orders, confiscation proceedings and compensation orders are deployed in private prosecutions. Restraint orders in private prosecution proceedings For an overarching guide to the operation, mechanics and effect of restraint orders in general, see: Restraint and confiscation—overview. A restraint order operates to freeze property and to preserve a defendant’s assets so that they remain available to meet any confiscation order imposed following a successful prosecution and conviction. For further background, see Practice Note: Restraint orders—What is a restraint order? Applications seeking restraint orders are made in the Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and can be pursued before any arrest has occurred and/or before proceedings have commenced (commonly described as pre-charge restraint orders), or later within an investigation or prosecution, including post conviction. POCA 2002, s 40 identifies five circumstances in which the Crown Court may make a restraint order. For additional information, see Practice Note: Restraint orders—Conditions for the grant of a restraint order and...

This Practice Note sets out what a civil restraint order (CRO) is and when the court may make one under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 4.8 and FPR 2010, PD 4B. It focuses on general civil restraint orders (GCROs), covering who may apply, their effect and how long they last (including how they can be extended or continued). It also addresses matters relevant to a party bound by a GCRO, such as seeking permission to amend or discharge the order and the consequences of breaching it... Civil restraint orders in family proceedings A CRO is not intended to bar access to the courts; rather, it safeguards the integrity of the court’s process by filtering applications made by litigants who are subject to a CRO. In short, applications that fall within the scope of an existing CRO must be considered by the judge specified in the order before they may proceed...

At the Family Court held at [ Court name ] Case No: [ Case number ] [ The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 OR The Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 OR The Senior Courts Act 1981 OR Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 ] The [ Marriage OR Civil partnership OR Relationship ] of [ applicant name ] and [ respondent name ] After hearing from [ name the advocate(s) who appeared ] Having reviewed the statements and heard the witnesses set out in the recitals below A freezing order was made by [ name of judge ] on [ date ], sitting in private To [ RESPONDENT NAME ] of [ RESPONDENT ADDRESS ] Warning: if you, [ RESPONDENT NAME ], fail to obey this order you may be found in contempt of court and could be imprisoned, fined, or have your assets seized Any...

1 Introduction 1.1 We operate procedures requiring colleagues to escalate any awareness or suspicion of money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, bribery, corruption, sanctions breaches, tax evasion, etc to [ insert, eg the nominated officer ] (see section 3 for further detail). In defined circumstances they must then notify the National Crime Agency (NCA) by submitting a suspicious activity report (SAR) or, depending on the nature of the report, to another agency via the appropriate channels. 1.2 The NCA assigns those SARs to specialist financial crime investigation officers for further enquiry. Intelligence from SARs may then be shared by the NCA with other law enforcement or government agencies (LEAs), which may require additional information. This is a financial crime investigation. 1.3 Where further information is needed from us following a SAR, it will typically be obtained through enforcement action (most often a production order) by an LEA. 1.4 This document outlines our internal procedure for dealing with financial crime investigations and enforcement actions. It sets...