Senel Ahmet v David Paul Tatum

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 does not create an exhaustive and exclusive code requiring every third-party dispute over property relevant to confiscation proceedings to be determined in the Crown Court. Its provisions contemplate that civil proceedings concerning restrained property or property subject to an enforcement-receiver application may continue, on terms, or be stayed.

A civil claim asserting an interest in potentially realisable property is not generally an abuse of process, even if the dispute is with the prosecutor. The appropriate response depends on the particular facts. A stay will commonly be preferable where the Crown Court can conveniently resolve the ownership issue within confiscation proceedings, but striking out is not ordinarily justified merely because those proceedings exist.

The appellant claimed a beneficial interest in Brindles Farmhouse, although the first respondent was its registered proprietor. After his arrest, the Crown Court made a restraint order under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 affecting the property and a joint bank account. The appellant had unsuccessfully sought a variation concerning funds in that account.

She then brought Chancery proceedings against the first respondent and the Crown Prosecution Service seeking an inquiry and declaration as to the beneficial interests in the farmhouse. Michael Green J struck out the claim as an abuse of process: [2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch). He held that Part 2 of POCA provided a complete and exhaustive code for disputed property rights in restraint and confiscation proceedings.

The question on appeal was whether a third party was required to litigate such ownership issues in the Crown Court rather than by civil proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. Part 2 of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 does not expressly or necessarily imply that it is the exclusive mechanism for resolving every third-party property dispute relevant to confiscation proceedings. The judge therefore erred in treating it as a complete and exhaustive code.

2. Sections 58(5) and 59(5), which permit the court to stay civil proceedings concerning property affected by a restraint order or an enforcement-receiver application, or to allow them to continue on terms, point against exclusivity. Section 10A enables the Crown Court to determine a defendant’s interest and protects third-party participation, but it does not require that court to determine every such issue.

3. A civil claim asserting an interest in realisable or potentially realisable property may exceptionally be abusive on its facts. It is not generally abusive merely because the claim concerns an issue that could arise in confiscation proceedings or because the prosecutor is the real opposing party.

4. There are practical advantages in the Crown Court deciding ownership, especially where a tainted-gift issue and the same evidence arise. Civil and confiscation proceedings can nevertheless coexist. Where the Crown Court is the preferable forum, the usual course will commonly be a stay under sections 58(5) or 59(5), rather than strike-out. The civil court must decide what is appropriate on the specific facts.

5. The strike-out order was set aside and the CPS application dismissed. The Court did not determine whether the High Court should now stay the claim.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appellant’s appeal, set aside the strike-out order and dismissed the CPS application.
• High Court, Chancery Division: Michael Green J struck out the claim as an abuse of process: [2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch).