Dare v Crown Prosecution Service

For an offence under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the arrangement must facilitate the acquisition of criminal property at the time it is concluded. The statutory reference to “facilitates” is present-tense. It does not extend to conduct which may, or will probably, facilitate a future acquisition. The person acquiring the property for another must therefore be identified or at least identifiable. Preparatory conduct, including an arrangement merely to meet and negotiate a price, is insufficient where no sale has been agreed and no prospective purchaser has been identified.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by justices for entering into an arrangement contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He had test-driven a stolen car and arranged to meet the seller again with a view to completing a purchase at a reduced price. He intended to resell the vehicle for profit and knew or suspected that it was stolen. The central issue was whether those arrangements facilitated the acquisition of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, despite there being no agreed sale and no identified prospective purchaser.

1. Appeal allowed. The justices’ factual findings were not open to challenge, but their conclusions of law were erroneous. The conviction was quashed.

2. Section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires an arrangement which the defendant knows or suspects facilitates the acquisition of criminal property by or on behalf of another person. The present tense requires the court to assess the position when the arrangement is concluded. The provision does not refer to what will, will probably, or may facilitate a future acquisition.

3. The other person must therefore be identified or at least identifiable at that point. A construction which treated every proposed resale of stolen goods as an offence under section 328(1) would give the provision an excessively broad reach.

4. The arrangement found by the justices was only an arrangement to meet again with a view to negotiating or completing a sale. No price had been agreed and no prospective purchaser had been identified. The claimant’s conduct was too preparatory to satisfy the statutory test.

5. The approach was consistent with the Court of Appeal’s insistence in R v Geary [2010] EWCA Crim 1925 that legislation of this kind should be interpreted according to its natural and ordinary meaning.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated succeeded. The conviction was quashed.