Elie Taktouk v R

On an appeal against a confiscation order, fresh evidence may be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, even where the interaction with section 11 appears to require the court first to conclude that the appellant should be sentenced differently. That apparent difficulty must not prevent an effective remittal where plausible evidence may show that the available amount, and the resulting default sentence, is substantially wrong. A direction to proceed afresh under section 11(3A) does not require the confiscation proceedings to restart from the beginning. The appellate court may preserve the benefit figure and give procedural directions. Failure to disclose asset-investigation reports was an error, but did not alone justify allowing the appeal where the reports had been identified in the disclosure schedule and their evidential value was uncertain.

Following convictions for fraud and using a false instrument, and a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment, the appellant became subject to a confiscation order of £4,549,925.29 made by the Crown Court at Southwark under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The order included compensation and an eight-year default term.

The appellant challenged the benefit calculation, the application of statutory assumptions, the assessment of his available amount, and the prosecution’s failure to disclose investigators’ reports concerning alleged family wealth. The Court of Appeal considered whether fresh evidence from the appellant’s brother, and the reports, should be admitted, whether the order should be quashed and remitted, and what a direction to proceed afresh required.

1. Disposition. Leave to appeal on the benefit and statutory-assumptions grounds was refused. Leave was granted on the fresh-evidence ground, the confiscation order was quashed, and the case was remitted for a fresh determination. Leave was granted on the non-disclosure ground, but the appeal on that ground was dismissed.
2. Fresh evidence. The appeal was an appeal against sentence in substance because the appellant was serving the default term. The apparent difficulty in applying section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to a confiscation appeal did not prevent the court from receiving evidence and making directions under section 11. The evidence from Dr Wassim Taktouk was capable of belief, potentially provided a ground for allowing the appeal, and would have been admissible below. Although there was no reasonable explanation for failing to call him earlier, the possibility that the appellant was serving a lengthy default sentence when the available amount might be substantially lower was critical in the interests of justice. The court also rejected the suggestion that imprisonment for non-payment demonstrated that the appellant had no assets, referring to R v Butler [2025] EWCA Crim 1.
3. Disclosure and remittal. The investigators’ reports were clearly disclosable and their non-disclosure was an error. They had, however, been identified on the disclosure schedule, were not requested by the defence, and were less definitive than the brother’s evidence. They did not independently justify allowing the appeal, but could be considered in the fresh proceedings.
4. The direction under section 11(3A) to proceed afresh did not require the case to start from scratch. Having regard to section 11(3B), the court had a general power to give procedural directions. It could direct that the benefit figure was not to be reconsidered, thereby ensuring under section 11(3C) that a new order was no more severe than the quashed order. The earlier decisions in R v Miller [2022] EWCA 1589 and R v Haden (Mark) [2024] EWCA Crim 344 were considered in that context.
5. The Crown Court was directed to admit the brother’s evidence and the reports, list a case-management hearing before HHJ Milne KC, and determine afresh what order should be made under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, without increasing the benefit figure.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 71, the court quashed the confiscation order on the fresh-evidence ground, dismissed the non-disclosure ground, and remitted the matter under sections 6 and 11 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
2. Crown Court at Southwark — Following the appellant’s convictions and sentence, the court made a confiscation order on 3 November 2023 for £4,549,925.29, with an eight-year default term.