Members of Chambers routinely represent Defendants and prosecuting authorities (whether the CPS, local authorities or other private prosecutors) in confiscation proceedings. This is irrespective of whether they appeared during the substantive proceedings. Counsel have acted in confiscation proceedings ranging from tens of thousands of pounds to tens of millions of pounds, with recent successes including securing a reduction in the benefit figure by over £10m in a prosecution brought by the SFO.

Counsel can be instructed either directly or through a legal practice to represent third parties under s10A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as intervenors in confiscation proceedings. This can involve draft witness statements, making representations and advocating in court on their behalf. Recent successes include persuading the Crown to withdraw a property from a Defendant’s schedule of available assets when faced by representations drafted by Counsel with evidence of beneficial ownership by the third party.

Chambers are often involved in applications under s22 and 23, drafting submissions and advocating in court on behalf of both defendants and prosecuting authorities seeking variations of confiscation orders. This includes acting when not instructed in the underlying proceedings.

Chambers also acts in the higher courts in matters involving confiscation, asset forfeiture and restraint. Whether it is assisting develop the (then) law of postponement or use of restrained funds, to arguing matters of res judicata on behalf of foreign government clients seeking to secure property under restraint orders, chambers has the experience. Chambers represented the Government of Netherlands in the long running series of cases relating to a restraint order made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (Netherlands v Baybasin [2024] EWHC 2343 (KB))

Increasingly chambers are instructed on behalf of individuals on a private basis to challenge applications for cash forfeiture, account forfeiture and freezing orders, and other Part 5 matters. Chambers are experienced in making representations to police forces in response to these types of applications as well as assisting with the compilation of evidence to ensure the best possible representation at court opposing these applications. Chambers are routinely involved in the representation of both individuals and companies in response to these matters, with recent successes including successfully opposing an application for an account forfeiture order of a brewing company that was allegedly involved in money laundering – the application was dismissed, with costs awarded to the Respondent representing the Applicant authority taking an unreasonable approach to the representations Counsel had drafted.

Whilst the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 represents much of the underlying legislation chambers work, our experience also encompasses predecessor provisions under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (including arguments in relation to Certificates of Inadequacy, such as O’Connor v CPS [2021] EWHC 2900 (Admin)).