The following Corporate Crime guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
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 Act 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, 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 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 of
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234