R v Puvinder Singh Briah

A confiscation appeal turns on the evidence supporting the available amount. Fresh evidence may establish that sums included as hidden assets were paid to HMRC; those sums must then be deducted. A defendant’s failure to explain documents or give evidence is relevant where the true extent of realisable assets lies peculiarly within his knowledge. The appellate court will not infer double counting merely from apparently overlapping entries. It must examine the schedules, periods and evidential basis for the alleged overlap. Unsupported interpretations advanced through counsel do not justify reducing the available amount.

After conviction and sentence for conspiracy offences, the appellant was made subject to a confiscation order of £696,067.04 by the Central Criminal Court under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal granted leave on two grounds concerning the available amount: whether four cheques paid to HMRC should be deducted, and whether the confiscation judge had double counted sums appearing in different schedules. HMRC later confirmed the payments, and the evidence was admitted under section 23 of the 1968 Act. The central issue was whether the available amount had been overstated.

Appeal allowed in part. The appeal succeeded on the HMRC-cheque ground and failed on the alleged double-counting ground.

1. HMRC payments. The original cheque-stub evidence was illegible and had not been supported by the appellant’s evidence or by confirmation from HMRC. The judge was not criticised for placing no reliance on it in those circumstances. On appeal, however, HMRC confirmed that approximately £42,000 had been received through the four cheques. That evidence was admitted as fresh evidence under section 23 of the 1968 Act. The court was satisfied that the prosecution’s concession was properly made. The payments therefore had to be deducted from the hidden-asset figure.
2. Double counting. The appellant did not give evidence or call witnesses to explain the documents, although the true extent of his realisable assets was peculiarly within his knowledge. Counsel’s interpretations were unsupported by evidence. The court examined the relevant schedules and found no double counting in the figures derived from appendices 19, 20, 21 or 23.
3. The four entries relied on from appendix 22 did not justify reducing the separate £200,000 figure. They related to a subsequent period, and there was no evidence that the £200,000 had been reduced by those entries. The court would not draw that inference.
4. The hidden-asset figure of £212,150.74 was quashed and replaced by £169,475.40, reflecting the deduction of £42,675.34. The appeal was allowed on ground 1 alone.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 1818, the appeal was allowed on the HMRC-cheque ground, dismissed on the double-counting ground, and the hidden-asset figure was substituted.
• Central Criminal Court: HHJ Hillen made a confiscation order of £696,067.04 under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: The appellant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.