Director of Public Prosecutions v Tomas Plepys & Anor

An overseas forfeiture order qualifies as an external order where it is made by an overseas court, concerns property found or believed to derive from criminal conduct, and provides for recovery of specified property or money. Where the statutory conditions and procedural requirements are satisfied, the High Court must register the order and make a recovery order. Recoverable property may include specified money held by a person into whose hands it can be followed. The court must also consider the statutory exceptions and the minimum-value requirement before granting relief.

The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a Part 8 claim under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005. The claim sought registration and enforcement of a United States District Court order dated 29 September 2021 concerning £36,201.60 alleged to represent proceeds of fraud.

The money had been paid into an HSBC account held by Tomas Plepys. HSBC did not oppose the claim, and Mr Plepys did not acknowledge service. The central issues were whether the United States order was an external order, whether the money was recoverable property, and whether the statutory and procedural conditions for registration and a recovery order were met.

1. The United States order was an external order within section 447(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It was made by an overseas court, concerned property found or believed to have been obtained through criminal conduct, and provided for recovery of specified property.

2. The underlying fraudulent procurement of money constituted criminal conduct for the purposes of section 447(8). It was sufficient that the conduct constituted, or would have constituted if occurring in the United Kingdom, an offence in the United Kingdom.

3. Under sections 444 and 446 of the Act, read with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, the court was required to give effect to the external order through registration and a recovery order. Articles 142 and 143 identified the relevant enforcement authority, permitted proceedings in the High Court, and required service on the respondent and relevant holders of associated property. Those requirements were satisfied.

4. The money in the HSBC account was recoverable property under article 202. It was specified in the external order and had been found, or believed, to have been obtained in connection with criminal conduct. The conditions in article 177 were therefore met, including the requirement to vest the property in the trustee for civil recovery. No statutory exception was established.

5. The enforcement authority reasonably believed that the aggregate value of the recoverable property exceeded £10,000, as required by article 200. The claim form and evidence also complied with paragraph 4 of the Civil Recovery Proceedings Practice Direction.

6. The court registered the United States order and made a recovery order vesting the money in the trustee for civil recovery, with consequential directions concerning transfer, the trustee’s powers and discharge after distribution.

First-instance decision. No earlier judicial decision is stated in the judgment.