R v Christopher Michaelides

In confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, where the criminal lifestyle assumptions apply, the applicable standard under section 6(7) is the civil standard. Evidence that property was obtained does not require the prosecution to prove its criminal source. The defendant may identify a different source to displace the assumption that the property derives from general criminal conduct. A confiscation judge is not confined to the facts of the offences of conviction or the basis on which sentence was imposed. The judge may draw proper inferences from evidence heard at the confiscation hearing when assessing benefit and available amount. An appellate court will not interfere with findings reasonably open on that evidence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to offences involving drugs, firearms and related matters and received 20 years’ imprisonment. Proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 led to a confiscation order for £3,450,000, with 11 years’ imprisonment in default. The judge found, using evidence including EncroChat messages, that the applicant had benefited from 138 payments over a six-year period and that the benefit remained available. The renewed application for leave challenged the standard of proof used for criminal activity not charged and the assessment of benefit. The central issues were whether the asserted exception concerning criminal proof applied and whether the factual findings were open to the judge.

The application for leave was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

1. The argument that Briggs-Price [2009] 2 WLR 1101 required proof to the criminal standard was academic. The judge had stated that, if the criminal standard were necessary, he was sure that the applicant had been involved in the relevant drug importations. In any event, Briggs-Price concerned benefit from particular criminal conduct, not the criminal lifestyle assumptions under section 10 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
2. Section 6(7) of the Act provides for the civil standard. As explained in R v Whittington [2009] EWCA Crim 1641 and R v Bagnall & Sharma [2012] EWCA Crim 677, once there is evidence that property has been obtained, proving its source is unnecessary. The defendant may seek to establish a source only to displace the assumption that the property came from general criminal conduct. The first ground therefore failed.
3. The confiscation judge was not constrained by the facts of the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty or by the basis of sentence. Having heard evidence and full argument over five days, he was entitled to draw the inferences that the applicant received cash transport payments totalling £3,450,000 and that those funds remained available. His factual conclusions were properly open to him, and there was no basis for appellate interference.
4. The reasons were essentially those given by the single judge. Leave was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for leave refused and appeal dismissed, [2025] EWCA Crim 1276.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge — initial application for leave refused.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — confiscation order of £3,450,000 made on 26 September 2024, following findings on benefit and available amount.