Bevan, R v (3rd Party Application re Confiscation Decision Under S 10A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002)

In a third-party determination under section 10A, the court must ascertain the defendant’s actual interest in property by applying ordinary property and trust law. It cannot use fairness, public policy, or a tracing exercise based solely on the criminal source of funds to alter established legal and beneficial ownership.

Where tainted-gift provisions have not been invoked, an innocent spouse’s agreed beneficial share is not reduced because stolen money was used unilaterally to discharge a mortgage or acquire assets. Legal ownership and the presumed corresponding beneficial interest remain effective unless displaced by findings properly made on the evidence.

Jeffrey Bevan was convicted of offences involving the transfer or conversion of criminal property. In confiscation proceedings, his wife, Samantha Bevan, made a third-party claim concerning the matrimonial home, a Mercedes car and two bank accounts.

The Crown accepted that she had no knowledge of her husband’s criminality, but contended that her interests should be reduced or eliminated because the relevant assets had been funded with stolen money. The Crown had disclaimed reliance on the tainted-gift provisions. The Crown Court’s determination of 8 April 2019 accepted that approach. Mrs Bevan appealed under section 31(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the Crown Court’s determination concerning the interests in the matrimonial home, the Mercedes and the two bank accounts.
2. Section 10A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 required the court to determine the extent of the defendant’s actual interest in the relevant property. That exercise is governed by ordinary property and trust principles. It does not confer a free-standing power to reallocate legal or beneficial interests by reference to fairness, public policy, or the fact that criminal money funded an asset.
3. The court followed Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office [2008] EWCA Crim Civ 645; [2009] QB 348. That authority rejected the creation, through public policy or imputed intention, of a confiscation jurisdiction over a third party’s assets which legislation did not otherwise confer. The same approach applied under the 2002 Act, particularly where the statutory tainted-gift route had been disclaimed.
4. The parties’ unaltered agreement that each held one half of the matrimonial home’s beneficial equity governed the result. Mr Bevan’s unilateral use of stolen money to repay the mortgage did not alter that agreement. Mrs Bevan’s sole legal ownership of the car and one account, and her joint legal ownership of the other account, also supported the corresponding presumed beneficial interests. The judge had made no findings capable of displacing them.
5. The Crown could not introduce on appeal a tainted-gift or bare-nominee case which it had not advanced below and on which no findings had been made. The court declined to remit the matter, both because its jurisdiction to do so was doubtful and because a further hearing would be unfair to Mrs Bevan.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed Mrs Bevan’s appeal and quashed the third-party determination: [2020] EWCA Crim 1345.
• Crown Court at Cardiff — in a section 10A determination dated 8 April 2019, reduced or rejected Mrs Bevan’s claimed interests in assets connected with the confiscation order made on 5 July 2019.