There is no requirement for there to have been a criminal conviction as proof of the unlawful conduct required for assets seizure. Crucially, the issue of a criminal conviction is not central to the authorities’ ability to freeze a person’s assets. Similarly, an investigation may begin with property and, as information about it emerges, it can become an investigation into a particular person.Ĭivil recovery has given SOCA and then the NCA, not to mention many other organisations, widespread powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to bring court proceedings against anyone it believes owns assets which are, or represent, property obtained through unlawful conduct. The Crime and Courts Act also allows for an investigation to begin with a person and - as property is identified and more is known about it - then become an investigation into property. As mentioned earlier, this amendment allowed the authorities to go to court and seek orders against any property regardless of where it is, as long as there is a connection to the UK. Yet while the ruling in the case of Perry and others V SOCA made it clear that UK authorities could not seize assets, it also spawned the amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, which effectively reversed this ruling. The ruling also explained that a disclosure order (DO) – that compels someone to answer questions, provide documents or other information - made under POCA could not be made against a person outside the UK’s jurisdiction. It made it clear that no civil recovery order (CRO) or property freezing order (PFO) made under the Proceeds of Crime Act could be made regarding assets outside the UK. The 2012 ruling in Perry and others V SOCA severely limited both SOCA’s ability to recover assets from abroad and its powers regarding people outside the UK. That can no longer be accepted as gospel. It was once the case that being beyond British shores made someone safe from UK civil recovery proceedings. The freezing of assets has been an issue of legal fighting this decade, with Parliament and the courts becoming the battleground for a series of skirmishes. To put it mildly, civil recovery has been a difficult issue for the government in recent years. After all, if any unsuccessful attempt to seize assets is likely to lead to a huge claim for damages, as in Mr Perry’s case, will the NCA deem it to be a risk worth taking in many cases? Not only is it now facing a massive legal action – the case could have serious implications for its ability to pursue other people’s assets. There is no doubt that the whole saga has been a problem for the NCA. The NCA says it will vigorously defend what it calls a speculative application. But this action was dropped in June – and now Mr Perry is suing the NCA for “loss and damage” of income and investment opportunities. This gave the NCA the power to pursue all of Perry’s worldwide assets. SOCA and then its successor the NCA disputed this.Īn amendment to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 – in Section 48 – then allowed for assets to be pursued outside the UK if they had some connection to this country. It made it clear that only Mr Perry’s assets in the UK could be targeted. When Mr Perry appealed against the freezing order in 2012, the Supreme Court in this country ruled that it was illegal for SOCA to seize his possessions outside the UK. SOCA’s argument was that these assets were frozen because they were derived from over-charging from a pension scheme for life insurance, for which Mr Perry was convicted in Israel. It is the latest twist in a saga that began when the NCA’s predecessor, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), obtained a High Court Order to freeze £22M worth of Mr Perry’s UK and worldwide assets. Mr Perry is now on the warpath, alleging that the unlawful freezing of his assets stopped him pursuing investment opportunities worth hundreds of millions of pounds. In June this year, the NCA abandoned a claim against Mr Perry’s assets and paid his legal costs. Tycoon Israel Perry is claiming £220M in damages from the NCA because he believes it illegally froze his worldwide assets. In one case, at least, the tables appear to have been turned. The case is a high-value reminder that assets forfeiture is a volatile area of law. The National Crime Agency (NCA) is being sued for £220m by a tycoon who claims that his assets were illegally frozen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |