News and Articles

On 4 February 2022 a confiscation order was made against the defendant with a benefit figure of £808,223.47, following his conviction for fraudulent trading in May 2021.

On 5 February 2026, pending a s.22 application, the Crown obtained a restraint order including £25,000 of Mr Ryan’s savings. Emily secured a partial variation releasing £5,000 which enabled the defendant to meet minimum payments on credit card liabilities. The restraint proceedings involved detailed consideration of R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 23 and liabilities to third – party creditors.

The remaining £22,227.49, accepted to have been legitimately earned, became the subject of the final s.22 hearing.

The court confirmed that the principles set out in R v Tivnan [1999] 1 Cr App R (2) 92 and R v Wood [2022] EWCA Crim 1243 are now contained in section 5A(2) as the ‘principal objective’, which is “to deprive the defendant of the defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct, so far as within the defendant’s means”. Together with the new power under s.22A to make compensation directions, these weigh “heavily in the exercise of the discretion pointing toward making an order” (at [25]).

Emily submitted that the funds were the antithesis of a windfall and that the full uplift sought would jeopardise lawfully incurred business debts, tax liabilities and Mr Ryan’s credit rating. Further, that Mr Ryan had rehabilitated, and that the full uplift would impact upon innocent third parties.

Applying anxious scrutiny as a non – windfall case, the court gave weight to Mr Ryan’s rehabilitation and to the impact on his credit rating and tax liabilities. The court limited the increase to £14,999.47, with Mr Ryan retaining £7,228.

The decision confirms that whether an uplift is “just” under s.22 remains a genuine discretion after the June 2026 reforms.