Ahmed v Crown Prosecution Service, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, November 15, 2018, [2018] EWCA Civ 2543

Resolution Date:November 15, 2018
Issuing Organization:Civil Division
Actores:Ahmed v Crown Prosecution Service
 
FREE EXCERPT

Case No: C1/2017/2106

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 2543

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Mr Justice Jay

CJA 173 and 174 of 2006

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 15/11/2018

Before:

LORD JUSTICE PATTEN

LORD JUSTICE NEWEY

and

LORD JUSTICE COULSON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Appellant appeared in person

Mr Jonathan Kinnear QC and Mr Michael Newbold (instructed by CPS Proceeds of Crime) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 7 November 2018

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentLord Justice Newey:

  1. This case concerns the impact on pension policies in the name of the appellant, Mr Syed Ahmed, of a receivership order made in confiscation proceedings.

  2. Mr Ahmed was convicted on 28 March 2007 of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. The charges arose out of a ``carousel'' VAT fraud designed to extract money from HM Revenue and Customs (``HMRC'', then HM Customs and Excise).

  3. Confiscation proceedings under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ensued. In 2010, these came before Flaux J, who ordered Mr Ahmed and a co-defendant to pay some £92 million. He arrived at that figure on the basis that it represented the value of the property that each defendant had obtained as a result of or in connection with his offence. Although section 71(6) of the 1988 Act provided for an offender to be ordered to pay a sum equal to ``the amount appearing to the court to be the amount that might be realised at the time the order was made'' if that was less than ``the benefit in respect of which it is made'', the defendants had concealed their assets and so, Flaux J considered, could not show that the ``amount that might be realised'' was lower than the value of the benefit. In consequence, Flaux J said, ``the Court must make a confiscation order for the full value of the benefit and has no discretion to order confiscation of a lesser sum'' (see paragraph 383 of the judgment). A little earlier in his judgment, Flaux J had observed that a personal pension scheme of Mr Ahmed was ``clearly a realisable asset for the purposes of these proceedings'' (paragraph 381).

  4. On appeal (see R v Ahmad [2012] EWCA Crim 391, [2012] 1 WLR 2335), the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concluded that the value of the benefit that Mr Ahmed and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL