Munir, R. v

A confiscation order must not double count criminal money both as an unspent asset and as value represented in property acquired with that money. A reduction is justified where the evidence, read with the trial verdict, supports a traceable connection between the withdrawn cash and property already included in the available assets.

Conversely, a defendant alleging double counting must provide reliable evidence of the alleged money trail. Unsubstantiated instructions to an accountant, unsupported by banking records, company documents or the defendant’s evidence, do not establish that cash was used to acquire other assets.

The appellant had been convicted of cheating HM Revenue & Customs of about £6.5 million through VAT fraud, with associated money-laundering offences. He received seven years’ imprisonment.

In ensuing confiscation proceedings, Judge Gee assessed the benefit of the criminal conduct at about £7.572 million and made an order based on realisable assets of about £5.6 million, with seven years’ imprisonment in default.

The appeal concerned whether cash withdrawn from Talkland Telecom had been counted twice: first as withdrawn cash and again through the value of properties allegedly bought with it. The appellant relied in part on an accountant’s report based on his instructions, although he did not give evidence.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The certified realisable amount was reduced by £196,023. The term of seven years’ imprisonment in default was unchanged.

2. The court held that there was a sufficient evidential basis for a possible overlap in respect of the two Deansgate flats. The timing of the deposits and later transfers, the evidence presented at trial, and the jury’s verdict permitted the inference that cash removed from Talkland Telecom had been transferred through Spiral Technology and used towards completion of those purchases. As the flats’ value had also been included among the assets, the relevant sums created a risk of double counting.

3. There was no evidential foundation for the suggested overlap concerning Botham Hall and Rappax Road. The documented funds used for those purchases were telegraphic transfers through companies engaged in trading. There was no reliable evidence that cash withdrawn from Talkland Telecom entered those companies, remained identifiable, and was then used for the properties.

4. The court criticised the reliance on an accountant’s report repeating the appellant’s instructions when the appellant was not to give evidence. In a complex financial confiscation case, an assertion of a money trail required banking evidence and supporting documentation. The accountant’s numerical reconstruction did not establish the alleged link between the cash and the properties.

5. The court made no order as to costs and indicated that it would invite observations from the accountant before deciding whether to refer the matter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants’ disciplinary process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal to the limited extent of reducing the certified realisable amount by £196,023.
• Crown Court: Judge Gee made a confiscation order for approximately £5.6 million and imposed seven years’ imprisonment in default.