The power of the court to order the forfeiture of property under the Sentencing Act 2020 The Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020), also known as the Sentencing Code, is the principal source of the court's power to order the forfeiture of property connected with the commission of a criminal offence. The order is known as a 'deprivation order' and can be made by the Crown Court or a magistrates' court in respect of any offence. The procedure to be followed by the courts when making such orders is detailed in Practice Note: Restitution and deprivation orders. Other statutory powers of forfeiture Various statutes grant the courts the power to order the forfeiture of items following conviction for certain offences should the court consider it appropriate to do so. Practitioners should always check the individual statutory provision creating the offence on which they are advising in order to identify whether provision is made for the forfeiture of property in respect of the offence that it creates. Examples of some of the most common statutes containing

In R v McGoldrick, the Court of Appeal applied the principle that a compensation order should only involve assets recoverable within six months of an order and that will normally not include the periodical payments payable under a pension scheme, but will include any commutable cash lump sum.

The rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another (or who has unlawfully aided, abetted or procured the death of another) from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing. The rule applies whether the benefit is acquired by Will or through intestacy.

Forfeiture claims may not be probate actions by definition, but they will inevitably involve personal representatives and/or beneficiaries in court proceedings. Forfeiture principle The background to forfeiture rests in the principle that it would be inequitable to permit the perpetrator of a crime to benefit from that crime. Forfeiture rule This rule: '… means the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.' It does not matter whether the benefit is acquired by Will or through intestacy. Additionally, the rule is extended to include: '… a person who has unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death of that other.' It seems that the principle and, indeed, the Forfeiture Act 1982 (FoA 1982) itself, only apply to the criminal and: '… that the crime of one person may prevent that person from the assertion of what would otherwise be a right, and may accelerate or beneficially affect the rights of third persons, but can never prejudice or injuriously affect those

Private Client analysis: The forfeiture rule, which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing, was held to apply to the offence of causing death by careless driving. Practitioners must act quickly following any conviction to apply for modification or exclusion of the effect of that rule under the Forfeiture Act 1982 (FA 1982) or lose the right to an order. Written by Angharad Davies, barrister, at 9 Park Place, Cardiff.

Property Disputes analysis: On 24 May 2024, the High Court handed down judgment in Tropical Zoo Ltd v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow. This case on breaches of lease covenants has the potential to change lease drafting and give rise to a new wave of arguments on waiver. Written by David Jones, associate at Womble Bond Dickinson.

A forger is a person who makes, alters or uses a document, instrument or other item so that it falsely appears genuine, intending that it be accepted as authentic and usually intending to deceive or cause loss or gain. In legal practice, the term commonly refers to individuals involved in the falsification of signatures, contracts, wills, deeds, cheques, identity documents, court documents or digital records.“Forger” is a descriptive label rather than a primary statutory term, but it is closely linked to offences such as forgery, fraud and the use of false instruments. In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, relevant offences are principally found in the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and the Fraud Act 2006. In Scotland, forgery-related conduct is generally prosecuted under the common law of uttering and related fraud offences. In Ireland, forgery and related conduct is addressed in, among other legislation, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.Across all these jurisdictions, the practical significance of identifying someone as a forger lies in establishing dishonest intent, the falsity of the document or item, and its potential to induce reliance, financial loss or other legal consequences.

Offence of making a false instrument A person is guilty of forgery under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (FCA 1981) if they make a false instrument, with the intention that they or another uses it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it, to do or not to do some act to their own or any other person's prejudice. 'Instrument' FCA 1981, s 8 provides a definition of instrument applicable for all of the offences created by FCA 1981. Instrument includes any document, postal stamp, Inland Revenue stamp, disk, tape, sound track or other device on or in which information is recorded or stored by mechanical, electronic or other means. Document is not defined by FCA 1981 but it does not include any currency notes which are covered by the counterfeiting offences in FCA 1981, Pt II. See Practice Note: Counterfeiting notes and coins. Electronic impulses representing passwords for accessing computers are not instruments so 'hacking' into a computer or the misuse of passwords cannot be forgery

There are offences consisting of making, or copying, or using, or using a copy of a false instrument; or having custody or control of specified kinds of false instruments or machines for making them: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, ss 1–5.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Having set aside an earlier judgment on the basis that the claim had been defeated by a forged document, the claimant was able to use that same forgery to found a successful new claim for unlawful means conspiracy. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Form 10b-5 Letter [insert date] [insert address] Re: Underwriting Agreement Dear [insert text] This firm has acted as counsel to [insert name], a [insert company details] (the Company), in connection with the issuance and sale of [insert number] shares of common stock, par value $[insert value] (the Shares) of the Company, pursuant to the terms of the Underwriting Agreement dated [insert date] (the Underwriting Agreement) by and among the Company and you, as representatives of the several underwriters named in Schedule I to the Underwriting Agreement (the Underwriters). This letter is furnished to you pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section [insert number] of the Underwriting Agreement in connection with the closing thereunder on the date hereof (the Closing). Nothing herein shall be construed to cause us to be considered ‘experts’ within the meaning of Section 11 of the Securities Act 1933, as amended. During

A Form A is a court form in family proceedings setting out the applicant's notice of (or intention to proceed with) an application for a financial order.