Confiscation and Restraint (POCA)

R v P

[Leicester CC]:

POCA proceedings were instigated following P’s conviction for importation of large quantities of Class A drugs. We successfully argued that the prosecution should not have retrospective leave to extend the POCA timetable beyond the two-year statutory time limit. As a result, the prosecution was unable to proceed with confiscation proceedings.

R v A

[Birmingham CC]:

POCA proceedings were instigated against A after he pleaded guilty to blackmail. The prosecution argued that A had a ‘criminal lifestyle’ and had ‘benefitted’ by around £1.3 million. We instructed experts and successfully argued that A should only pay approximately £11,000.

R v K

[Northampton CC]:

K became subject to POCA proceedings following his conviction for fraud. The prosecution argued that K had ‘benefitted’ by approximately £1.4 million and that his ‘available assets’ were in the region of £500,000. We successfully argued that the prosecution had failed to show that ‘lifestyle assumptions’ applied to the offence for which K was convicted. The POCA proceedings came to an end as a result.

For more information on our criminal defence services, or to arrange a confidential, no obligation, telephone call with one of our lawyers, please contact us.

Call Email