R v Peter Adrian Dilenardo & Anor

Where a confiscation order remains unsatisfied and is not subject to appeal, the statutory conditions for applying for a receiver under section 50 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are met. Appointment remains discretionary and must be exercised judicially, having regard to the statutory purpose of realising assets and the interests of non-defendants. A later variation application cannot reopen findings about realisable property. A pending review or complaint does not suspend enforcement without judicial authorisation. Under Article 1 Protocol 1, the question is whether the outcome is proportionate, not whether a particular formula was used. Fresh evidence that cannot afford a ground of appeal may be rejected. A point of law cannot be certified where it arose only from a decision refusing leave to appeal.

The applicants sought leave to appeal against an order of the Crown Court at Leeds dated 24 October 2025 appointing a receiver over 5 St Chads Grove to enforce a confiscation order made against the First Applicant in 2021 and varied shortly afterwards. The confiscation order followed convictions for fraud and related offences, and the First Applicant’s earlier challenges to his convictions, sentence and confiscation order were refused by the Court of Appeal in 2023.

The applicants also sought to introduce fresh evidence and challenged the receivership on grounds including inadequate legal representation, the mortgage lender’s right of consolidation, alleged double recovery, third-party interests, proportionality and the availability of alternative assets. The central questions were whether the statutory conditions for receivership were satisfied, whether the Crown Court had exercised its discretion properly, and whether the consequential applications should succeed.

Leave to appeal was refused. The applications for an extension of time, certification of a point of law of general public importance and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court were also refused.

1. Section 50 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires a confiscation order to have been made, to remain unsatisfied and not to be subject to appeal. Those conditions were met. Appointment of a receiver is nevertheless discretionary, and the discretion must be exercised judicially in accordance with the statutory framework, including section 69.
2. An application to vary a confiscation order cannot be used to reopen findings made at the confiscation hearing about the amount of realisable assets. Such findings can be challenged only by an appeal against the confiscation order. The approach in Gokal v Serious Fraud Office [2001] EWCA Civ 368 supported that conclusion. The agreed determination of the First Applicant’s interest under section 10A could not be relitigated in the enforcement proceedings.
3. The application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Financial Ombudsman complaint did not stay enforcement. Applying R v Soneji [2006] EWCA Crim 1125, the obligation to pay continued unless a court authorised a stay.
4. The Crown Court had considered the prospects of voluntary payment, alternative means of enforcement and the interests of the Second Applicant. The history showed no realistic voluntary proposal, and the receiver process would protect any properly established third-party interest. The mortgage lender had confirmed that sufficient sale proceeds would be directed towards the confiscation liability, receiver’s costs and sale costs, so there was no unlawful double recovery.
5. The receivership was proportionate for the purposes of Article 1 Protocol 1. The relevant question was whether the outcome was proportionate, rather than whether the judge expressly referred to the Convention or used a particular form of words. The statutory objective of recovering criminal assets and compensating victims, the prolonged default, the absence of realistic alternatives and the lender’s arrangement justified the order. The practical and effective recovery approach identified in R v Ahmad [2014] UKSC 36 was applicable.
6. The fresh material was considered de bene esse but was declined under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 because it did not appear to afford any ground for allowing the appeal. The applicants could not criticise the Crown Court for failing to consider evidence that had not been before it.
7. Following R v Hussain, Fiaz [2023] EWCA Crim 1100, the court had no power to certify a point of law involved only in a decision refusing leave to appeal. Certification and Supreme Court permission were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 18 December 2025, refused leave to appeal against the receivership order and refused the applications for an extension of time, certification and Supreme Court permission.
• Crown Court at Leeds: On 24 October 2025, appointed a receiver over 5 St Chads Grove under section 50 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and required vacant possession within two months.
• Earlier Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 28 March 2023, refused leave to appeal against the First Applicant’s convictions, sentence and confiscation order: R v Peter Adrian Dilenardo [2023] EWCA Crim 517.