a question of priorities: do charge-holders’ or
prosecutors’ rights reign supreme in POCA cases?
Gone are the days when serious criminals only
dealt in used fivers. They are now more sophisticated operators who
will go to great lengths to hide their criminal activity behind a
facade of legitimacy and to conduct large-scale fraud they may use
one or more companies to achieve their goal, particularly if that
is large-scale VAT or duty evasion, whether by means of
MTIC/carousel fraud or otherwise. The really clever criminal who is
intent upon secreting away ill-gotten gains well beyond the reach
of the enforcement authorities, who will pursue the criminal under
the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), may be bold enough to run
the business empire with the support of bank borrowing secured by a
debenture. An interesting question of priorities then arises when a
restraint order is made against the defendant that covers personal
assets, the shares in the company and the assets of the
company.
In an article published in the summer edition
of the R3 publication, Recovery, Lucy Edwards,
senior solicitor and Proceeds of Crime specialist in Blake
Lapthorn's Insolvency and Business Recovery team in
London,
investigates whose rights prevail when a restraint order is made
against assets subject to a floating charge.
View or download a full copy of the article in Recovery.
