Director of Public Prosecutions v Glenford Robert Adams & Anor

In civil recovery proceedings, the enforcement authority must establish on the balance of probabilities that property is recoverable property. The court should not impose a heightened standard because the remedy may be serious or significant.

Property paid for with money obtained through unlawful conduct is recoverable under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Once the court is satisfied that property is recoverable, it must make a recovery order, subject to the statutory good-faith exception and Convention-rights limitation. A person claiming an interest cannot rely on that exception where the evidence establishes that the person knew the property represented the proceeds of unlawful conduct.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought a civil recovery order under sections 243 and 266 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 concerning a property in Jamaica. The first defendant had consented to recovery of his interest and did not attend the trial. The second defendant, a joint tenant, contested recovery and maintained that the property had been purchased by the deceased co-owner and partly funded by her mother and another relative.

The central issues were whether the property represented money obtained through the first defendant’s drug trafficking, and whether the second defendant could rely on the exception in section 266(4).

1. Order for recovery. The claim succeeded. The court found on the balance of probabilities that the property had been paid for entirely with money obtained by the first defendant through drug trafficking. It therefore represented property obtained through unlawful conduct and was recoverable under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
2. Standard of proof. The civil standard applied. Following the approach discussed in Director of Assets Recovery Agency v He and Chen [2004] EWHC 2031 (Admin), the court declined to impose an elevated standard because civil recovery proceedings may have serious consequences.
3. Findings of fact. The first defendant’s admissions, his convictions, the timing of the purchase, the title documents and the absence of credible alternative funding established that he supplied the purchase monies. The second defendant was fifteen, in full-time education and had made no financial contribution. The accounts of the alternative funders were materially inconsistent, unsupported or unreliable.
4. Section 266(4) exception. The second defendant did not satisfy the statutory conditions. In particular, she had not obtained the recoverable property in good faith. The court accepted that she knew the first defendant was a criminal and that the inclusion of family members on the title was intended to make recovery more difficult.
5. Costs. The general rule in CPR 44.2(2)(a) applied. The second defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis in the sum of £30,784.34 by 31 January 2025.