Kingdom Corporate Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Commissioners for HMRC & Anor

The expiry of the statutory 48-hour period for initial detention of lawfully seized cash does not confer immunity from a fresh seizure under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. A lawful re-seizure may be made where the authority has taken reasonable steps to obtain a detention order but the hearing is delayed by the court system. The re-seizure need not occur after physical redelivery of the cash to the person from whom it was seized. The power remains subject to safeguards against abuse of process and to any challenge that the statutory conditions for further detention are not met.

HMRC lawfully seized substantial cash from business premises under section 294 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Its application for continued detention was heard after the 48-hour period had expired, and the magistrates’ order was therefore made out of time. HMRC subsequently re-seized the cash at its regional centre and obtained a further detention order from a District Judge.

The claimants sought judicial review of HMRC’s proposal to make a fresh application, the re-seizure, and the District Judge’s ruling that the re-seizure was lawful. The central issue was whether section 294 permitted re-seizure of cash previously seized under that section, and whether the cash first had to be returned to the claimants.

1. The claim was dismissed. The application concerning HMRC’s notice of 20 January 2023 added nothing separate, because no fresh detention application had then been made.
2. Sections 294–295 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 distinguish between seizure and continued detention. Section 294 contains nothing indicating that cash lawfully seized under it cannot later be re-seized. The authorities concerning unlawful seizures, and those concerning retrospective extensions of detention, were distinguishable.
3. The 48-hour limit remains strict. The court rejected any de minimis exception to an order made after the deadline, because legal certainty required the statutory limit to be applied according to its terms.
4. Nevertheless, expiry of the detention period did not give cash suspected to be recoverable property immunity from a fresh seizure. HMRC had made reasonable efforts to obtain a timely hearing, and the delay resulted from the court system. Re-seizure could therefore lawfully be followed by a fresh application for detention.
5. Re-seizure did not require physical delivery of approximately £400,000 in cash to the claimants before the power could be exercised. That requirement arose in Cook because the original seizure there was unlawful. It did not apply where the original seizure was lawful.
6. The court noted safeguards against abuse of process, including a possible challenge where HMRC had failed to seek judicial authority or had otherwise misused the power. The claimants could also challenge the further detention on its merits or seek release under section 297.
7. The District Judge’s brief reasoning adequately stated the conclusions that the re-seizure was lawful and that a second detention application could be made.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Divisional Court of the High Court. The judgment records earlier decisions of this court, including HMRC v Mann, but no appeal from the present proceedings.