Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 358

Requirements for making of disclosure order

Part 8 Investigations

(1)These are the requirements for the making of a disclosure order.

(2)There must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that—

(a)in the case of a confiscation investigation, the person specified in the application for the order has benefited from his criminal conduct;

[F1408 (b)in the case of a civil recovery investigation—

(i)the person specified in the application for the order holds recoverable property or associated property,

(ii)that person has, at any time, held property that was recoverable property or associated property at the time, or

(iii)the property specified in the application for the order is recoverable property or associated property;F1408]

[F1409 (ba)in the case of a money laundering investigation, the person specified in the application for the order has committed a money laundering offence,F1409]

[F1410 (c)in the case of an exploitation proceeds investigation, the person specified in the application for the order is a person within section 346(2A).F1410]

(3)There must be reasonable grounds for believing that information which may be provided in compliance with a requirement imposed under the order is likely to be of substantial value (whether or not by itself) to the investigation for the purposes of which the order is sought.

(4)There must be reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained.

Cases considering section 358 13

National Crime Agency v GKC (No 2)

[2026] EWHC 929 (Admin) · 24 April 2026

The reasonable-grounds-for-suspicion criterion for a disclosure order was identified as a judicial safeguard which did not prevent open justice applying in the inter partes proceedings in Hao. (see para [56])

National Crime Agency v Jiangbo Hao & Ors

[2024] EWHC 2240 (Admin) · 30 August 2024

The court applied the substantive requirements for a disclosure order, including reasonable suspicion, substantial value and public interest, and held that they remained satisfied (see paras [44]; [92]). The information sought had to be reasonably believed likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. That requirement was satisfied because the order could identify the source and movement of funds and further assets (see paras [44]; [48]; [92]). The court applied the public-interest requirement and gave substantial weight to continuation of an order satisfying the statutory conditions. Civil recovery would serve the public interest if the assets were proceeds of unlawful conduct, while a lawful source could also be established (see paras [49]; [57]; [96]).

Faerman v Director of the Serious Fraud Office

[2020] EWHC 1849 (Admin) · 10 July 2020

The court applies the statutory requirements for making a disclosure order and concludes that they were satisfied on the evidence. (see paras [47]-[50]) The court applies the reasonable-suspicion requirement and finds it satisfied because there were grounds for suspecting that the respondent held recoverable property. (see paras [47]; [50]) The court applies the requirement that information likely to be obtained under the order be of substantial value to the investigation. Information from domestic financial institutions and professional advisers was sufficient to meet that requirement. (see paras [47]-[50]; [57]; [60]) The court applies the public-interest requirement and maintains the order because the investigation concerned suspected recoverable property and there was a clear public interest in continuing it. (see paras [20]; [82])

What each judgment says about section 358 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Explanatory note

518.Because of their intrusive nature, it is not anticipated that disclosure orders will be sought unless other powers, such as production orders, have already been sought or would demonstrably not suffice to enable the required information to be obtained. Indeed, this would be one of the points a judge would be expected to consider as part of his consideration of the proportionality test which would apply by virtue of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

All the explanatory notes for the Act

Amendments and notes

4 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Amendments

  1. F1408S. 358(2)(b) substituted (1.6.2015 for E.W., 1.2.2017 in so far as not already in force) by Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c. 22), s. 61(2), Sch. 19 para. 9; S.I. 2015/964, art. 2(d) (with art. 3); S.I. 2017/4, art. 2 (with art. 3)
  2. F1409S. 358(2)(ba) inserted (27.4.2017 for specified purposes, 31.1.2018 for E.W. in so far as not already in force, 28.6.2021 for N.I. in so far as not already in force) by Criminal Finances Act 2017 (c. 22), ss. 7(3), 58(1)(6); S.I. 2018/78, reg. 3(b); S.I. 2021/724, reg. 2(1)(b)
  3. F1410S. 358(2)(c) added (6.4.2010) by Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25), s. 182(5), Sch. 19 para. 14 (with s. 180); S.I. 2010/816, art. 2, Sch. para. 18

Commencement

  1. I313S. 358 in force at 24.2.2003 by S.I. 2003/120, art. 2, Sch. (with arts. 3, 4) (as amended (20.2.2003) by S.I. 2003/333, art. 14)