CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE v RAJA PARVEZ IQBAL

On an application under section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, the High Court must issue a certificate of increase where it is satisfied that the amount realisable from the defendant is greater than the amount taken into account in the confiscation order. The provision covers assets which were concealed, undervalued, appreciated or acquired after the original order. The court determines whether property is held by the defendant, but the Crown Court decides the appropriate amount of any increased confiscation order.

The Crown Prosecution Service applied under section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 for a certificate of increase in relation to a confiscation order made against the defendant in 2007 and reduced in 2009. The original order reflected the defendant’s realisable assets at the time, although his assessed proceeds were substantially higher.

The application concerned funds in a savings plan, a half interest in a jointly owned property, and funds in a bank account. The central issue was whether those assets constituted property held by the defendant so that the amount that might be realised was greater than the amount previously taken into account.

1. The application under section 16(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 was allowed and a certificate of increase was issued.
2. Under section 6(1), the amount that might be realised is the total value of all realisable property held by the defendant at the relevant time. Section 6(2) defines realisable property as property held by the defendant.
3. Section 16(2) applies where the amount ordered to be paid is less than the assessed value of the proceeds of drug trafficking. If the High Court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised has increased, it must issue a certificate and give reasons. The Crown Court may then determine the appropriate increased amount under section 16(4)(a), up to the assessed value of the proceeds.
4. Following Re Peacock [2012] UKSC 5, section 16 is not limited to particular types of increase and may encompass concealed, undervalued, appreciated and after-acquired assets. It also contains no limitation period for the prosecutor’s applications.
5. The savings-plan funds belonged to the defendant despite the joint registration, because the other named beneficiary had disclaimed entitlement. The defendant and his partner held the property as joint tenants, giving him a one-half interest. The bank-account funds belonged solely to the defendant because the account was in his name and there was no evidence of a trust.
6. The court’s certificate did not determine the amount to be recovered under any further revised confiscation order and did not bind the Crown Court on that question.

Not an appeal. The judgment records that the original confiscation order was made by Sheffield Crown Court on 14 September 2007 and was varied downwards by the High Court on 29 July 2009.