Civil recovery—enforcement abroad
Civil recovery—enforcement abroad

The following Corporate Crime practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Civil recovery—enforcement abroad
  • Civil recovery—enforcement abroad (historic position)
  • Civil recovery of property abroad under POCA 2002
  • MLA requests pursuant to POCA 2002, s 282B to 282F

Civil recovery—enforcement abroad

Civil recovery—enforcement abroad (historic position)

Before the commencement of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 18, Part 2 (CCA 2013) on the 25 April 2013, the Supreme Court held in Perry that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Part 5 of the the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) to make a civil recovery order in respect of property located outside the UK.

Following the decision in Perry, the High Court considered Azam in which the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) argued that the property freezing order had been valid at the time it was made, ie prior to the decision in Perry, and therefore that the monies were validly transferred to the UK. In seeking to apply Perry, the respondent in Azam relied on the decision in HM Advocate v Cadder, in which the Supreme Court held that a new statement of law could be applied to the appellant’s case and other cases that were still live.

While the High Court in Azam had accepted that the civil recovery proceedings were ongoing, it nonetheless took the view that ‘the matter of the Luxembourg monies was concluded by their transfer and should not now be re-opened’. In addition, the court held that Cadder had concerned an administrative decision and said nothing about the lawfulness of an act done pursuant to an order

Popular documents