Court of Appeal
“The Crown Court had not considered sufficiently what benefit accrued to the defendants personally: The Defendants’ benefit was their enhanced salary, dividends or other pecuniary advantage that had accrued as a result of the Old Company being operated in an illegal way. The benefit was not the turnover. Likewise the assets of the old company did not belong to PB and MB.”
The vast majority of prosecutors and Crown Court Judges fantasise, adopting an ignorant/arrogant approach, or simply deliberately fail to comprehend the facts, when it comes to confiscation, in order to make attention grabbing, sensational headlines, I guess for self-justification of the costs to the public purse in pursuing such cases, and this is why we have the situation where so much remains uncollected in cases where fictitious confiscation orders are made.
In these cases those responsible within the judiciary should be held accountable for their misdeeds.
Leave a Comment
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Next post: Cyber-criminals alarm insurers as law firms lose £85m
Previous post: Shared privilege threat at forefront of Anglo-French bar tie-up
Timely webcasts, analysis, updates and presentations about criminal law, practice and procedure. This channel allows listeners to learn about cutting-edge issues from leading practitioners and other professionals involved in criminal litigation.
Search the Archives
View Content by Category