Ahmed v Crown Prosecution Service

For confiscation and receivership purposes, realisable property and the value which can be realised from it are distinct. Property held by a defendant includes property in which the defendant has an interest, and an interest includes a right. A pension policy in which the defendant accepts an interest is therefore realisable property under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, even if its present realisable value is nil or it cannot presently be accessed. Such a policy may be included in the property over which an enforcement receiver is appointed. Cases concerned with valuing property for fixing the amount of a confiscation order do not determine whether the property falls within the statutory category of realisable property.

The appellant had been convicted of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. Confiscation proceedings led to orders under Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, followed by the appointment of an enforcement receiver under section 80.

On an application by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Administrative Court amended the receivership schedule to include pension policies in the appellant’s name. The appellant appealed, arguing that the policies had no present realisable value and therefore were not realisable property. The central issue was whether lack of current value prevented their inclusion in the receiver’s schedule.

1. Appeal dismissed. The pension policies were properly included in the schedule to the receivership order.
2. Section 80 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 permits appointment of a receiver in respect of realisable property and empowers the receiver to realise such property. Section 74 defines realisable property to include any property held by the defendant. Under section 102(7), property is held where the defendant holds an interest in it, and section 102(1) provides that interest includes a right. The appellant accepted that he had an interest in the policies. They consequently fell within the statutory definition.
3. The court distinguished the question whether property is realisable property from the separate question of its value for calculating the amount of a confiscation order. Cornfield and Ford addressed valuation within the confiscation calculation. Chen likewise treated the pension policies as free property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, although their value at the relevant date was nil. Those authorities did not support excluding the policies from the category of realisable property.
4. The conclusion also accorded with the earlier first-instance view that a personal pension scheme was clearly a realisable asset. Lord Justice Coulson and Lord Justice Patten agreed with Lord Justice Newey’s judgment.
5. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the order of Mr Justice Jay dated 29 June 2017 was dismissed. The order had amended the schedule to an enforcement receivership order to include the appellant’s pension policies.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Jay ordered amendment of the receivership schedule. No neutral citation for that order was stated in the judgment.
3. Earlier confiscation proceedings: The judgment records confiscation orders made by Flaux J in 2010 and their subsequent consideration by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and the Supreme Court. Those decisions concerned the amount and enforcement structure of the confiscation orders and formed part of the same litigation.