Munir, R. v

Leave to appeal a confiscation order should be granted where there is an arguable basis for contending that the confiscation judge failed to give due weight to evidence at the criminal trial bearing on whether disputed cash represented hidden assets or was traceable through identified companies into realisable property. The merits of that issue remain for determination by the full court after appropriate schedules and evidence have been prepared.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Manchester of cheating the Revenue and five offences of converting property to retain the proceeds of criminal conduct or avoid prosecution. He received seven years’ imprisonment.

Following a further enquiry, Judge Gee QC made a confiscation order under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for £5,600,483. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against the amount of that order. He contended that cash withdrawn from the account used in the fraud had, on the Crown’s trial case, passed through identified companies into traceable investments rather than remaining hidden assets.

The central issue was whether that contention disclosed an arguable error in the assessment of realisable assets.

Disposition

1. The court granted leave to appeal against the confiscation order. It did not determine the amount properly recoverable or resolve whether the disputed cash was in fact hidden or traceable.

2. The applicant’s challenge was directed to the assessment of realisable assets, not to the finding of benefit. He submitted that the trial evidence showed that substantial cash withdrawals from the vehicle for the tax fraud were passed through identified companies and then into traced investments capable of confiscation.

3. The court had considered the Crown’s closing speech, the trial judge’s summing-up and the relevant documentation. It concluded that there was an arguable ground that the confiscation judge had failed to give weight, or sufficient weight, to that trial evidence when deciding whether the disputed sum represented hidden assets.

4. Questions also remained as to the particular sums said to have been invested in the companies. Those questions required fuller examination by a differently constituted Full Court.

5. The parties were directed to prepare an agreed schedule of relevant payments and an agreed bundle, with skeleton arguments before a three-hour hearing. Any need for further directions was reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted renewed leave to appeal against the amount of the confiscation order and directed that the merits be considered by another constitution of the Full Court.
• Crown Court at Manchester: After the applicant’s convictions and sentence, Judge Gee QC made a confiscation order under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in the sum of £5,600,483.