R v Mark Acklom

For the purposes of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 9, the available amount is calculated by adding separate components: free property after priority obligations and the total value of tainted gifts. A shortfall in free property cannot be carried across as a negative figure to reduce the value of tainted gifts. The free-property component is therefore no more than zero, while tainted gifts remain a separate gross component. That construction accords with the statutory language, the confiscation regime’s purpose of removing criminal benefit so far as the defendant’s means permit, and the distinct statutory treatment of tainted gifts. The later section 5A, although not in force when the order was made, was treated as confirming that approach. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Bristol in 2019. A confiscation order was made in December 2025 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for an agreed amount of £125,000, representing tainted gifts. The appellant argued that obligations arising from Spanish proceedings created a negative balance under section 9(1)(a), which should reduce the value of the tainted gifts under section 9(1)(b). The Crown Court rejected that construction. The Court of Appeal granted leave and a three-day extension of time. The central issue was whether a shortfall in free property could reduce the gross value of tainted gifts when calculating the available amount.

The appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal and the necessary three-day extension of time were granted. The appeal concerned only the confiscation order.

1. Statutory structure. At the date of the order, section 9(1) required the available amount to comprise the free-property component in section 9(1)(a) and the tainted-gift component in section 9(1)(b). They were separate components of an aggregate. The court proceeded on the footing that the Spanish orders did not affect the agreed available amount and did not decide whether they were priority obligations.
2. Ordinary meaning. If priority obligations exceed free property, the free-property component cannot operate as a negative contribution to the aggregate. For the purposes of the available-amount calculation it is treated as zero. There is no statutory mechanism by which that shortfall reduces the total value of tainted gifts.
3. Purpose and character of tainted gifts. The confiscation regime seeks to deprive defendants of benefits from criminal conduct so far as their means permit. The appellant’s construction would incentivise a defendant to make tainted gifts up to the amount of any shortfall, undermining that purpose. Tainted gifts are also not ordinarily available to satisfy priority orders imposed on the defendant, which supports their separate treatment.
4. Later statutory confirmation. Section 5A, inserted by section 255(1) and paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 21 to the Crime and Policing Act 2026, was not in force when the order was made. The court nevertheless treated it as codifying the existing position. Its reference to the defendant’s means including any tainted gifts was consistent with the construction of sections 9 and 77. The explanatory notes and Blackstone’s Criminal Practice provided a supporting sense-check but were not determinative.
5. Final orders. The court did not need to decide whether the agreed confiscation order could be set aside, because the statutory construction resolved the appeal. The judgment exhausted the appellant’s right of appeal concerning the confiscation order.

• Crown Court at Bristol: The appellant pleaded guilty to five fraud offences and was sentenced in 2019. A confiscation order was made in December 2025 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for an agreed sum of £125,000. The judge rejected the argument that a shortfall in free property could reduce the value of tainted gifts.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal and a short extension of time were granted. The appeal against the confiscation order was dismissed.