Fields & Ors v R.

Where co-principal conspirators have jointly obtained property, each has obtained the whole benefit for confiscation purposes. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the benefit must therefore be valued in the full amount for each conspirator. The inquiry into benefit, its value and the recoverable amount comprises distinct stages and must not be elided.

Although proportionality qualifies the duty to make a confiscation order, an order requiring each joint recipient to pay the full jointly obtained benefit, within that person's realisable assets, is not disproportionate merely because other conspirators may also be ordered to pay it. The assessment focuses on depriving each defendant of criminal proceeds, rather than on net profit or possible multiple recovery.

The appellants were convicted at the Crown Court at Birmingham of involvement in a conspiracy to defraud through a "long firm" fraud. The goods and services obtained on credit had a total value of £1,410,762. The trial judge found that Fields, Sanghani and Sagoo were principal conspirators in a joint operation and had jointly obtained that benefit. Rajput had a more limited role.

In confiscation proceedings, orders equal to the full adjusted benefit were made against Fields, Sanghani and Sagoo. Rajput's benefit was assessed by reference to the goods obtained through his role, but his available amount was found to be nil and a nominal order was made. The appellants challenged the valuation of joint benefit, their available amounts, the proportionality of unapportioned orders, and, in Sagoo's case, delay in the confiscation proceedings.

1. The appeal was allowed only to a limited extent. The Crown accepted, and the court agreed, that Fields should not be held to his earlier concession that the criminal lifestyle provisions applied. His confiscation order was therefore reduced to £1,565,945 and the default term reduced to seven years. The remaining appeals were dismissed, and Sagoo's renewed application for permission to advance the delay ground was refused.
2. Joint benefit was not apportionable at the benefit stage. The confiscation inquiry requires separate decisions on benefit, its value and the recoverable amount. Where co-principal conspirators have jointly obtained property, each has obtained the whole of it. Sections 76, 80 and 84 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 required the full joint benefit to be valued against each of Fields, Sanghani and Sagoo. Section 79(3) did not justify treating their asserted equitable shares in criminally obtained property as separate beneficial interests. The court followed May [2008] UKHL 28, R v Green [2008] UKHL 30 and Lambert & Walding [2012] EWCA Crim 421. Waya [2013] UKSC 51 concerned a materially different acquisition of property and did not displace that rule.
3. The available-amount findings stood. A defendant's lack of truthful disclosure does not automatically establish that assets equal the benefit. The statutory question must be answered justly and proportionately on all the evidence. However, the judge had considered the evidence, the risk of serious injustice and each appellant's disclosure. He was entitled to find that Fields, Sanghani and Sagoo had not discharged their burden of proving a lower available amount. Sagoo's bankruptcy did not prevent that conclusion.
4. Full recoverable orders were proportionate. Section 6(5) must be read subject to proportionality under Article 1 of the First Protocol. Nevertheless, each principal conspirator had in fact and law obtained the whole joint benefit. Requiring each to disgorge it, within his realisable assets, did not impose a fine. Potential orders against others, possible multiple recovery and the conspirators' individual profits did not make an order against a particular defendant disproportionate. Apportionment would also risk incomplete recovery and impracticable inquiries into criminals' financial dealings.
5. Delay did not justify a stay. Although the confiscation proceedings had taken far too long, Sagoo identified no prejudice preventing a fair hearing or otherwise making continuation unfair. The judge was entitled to refuse a stay.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — By [2013] EWCA Crim 2042, the court reduced Fields' confiscation order following the Crown's accepted concession. It dismissed the other grounds advanced by all appellants and refused Sagoo permission to pursue the delay ground.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — HHJ Carr tried the appellants and conducted the confiscation proceedings. He found Fields, Sanghani and Sagoo to be principal conspirators who had jointly obtained the proceeds of the conspiracy, and made confiscation orders reflecting the full adjusted benefit against each of them.