Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 362B

Requirements for making of unexplained wealth order

Part 8 Investigations

(1)These are the requirements for the making of an unexplained wealth order in respect of any property.

(2)The High Court must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that—

(a)the respondent holds the property, and

(b)the value of the property is greater than £50,000.

(3)The High Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting [F1426 —

(a)F1426] that the known sources of the respondent's lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient for the purposes of enabling the respondent to obtain the property[F1427 , or

(b)that the property has been obtained through unlawful conduct (within the meaning given by section 242).F1427]

(4)The High Court must be satisfied that—

(a)the respondent is a politically exposed person, or

(b)there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that—

(i)the respondent is, or has been, involved in serious crime (whether in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere), or

(ii)a person connected with the respondent is, or has been, so involved.

(5)It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)—

(a)whether or not there are other persons who also hold the property;

(b)whether the property was obtained by the respondent before or after the coming into force of this section.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (3)—

(a)regard is to be had to any mortgage, charge or other kind of security that it is reasonable to assume was or may have been available to the respondent for the purposes of obtaining the property;

(b)it is to be assumed that the respondent obtained the property for a price equivalent to its market value;

(c) income is “lawfully obtained” if it is obtained lawfully under the laws of the country from where the income arises;

(d) “known” sources of the respondent's income are the sources of income (whether arising from employment, assets or otherwise) that are reasonably ascertainable from available information at the time of the making of the application for the order;

(e)where the property is an interest in other property comprised in a settlement, the reference to the respondent obtaining the property is to be taken as if it were a reference to the respondent obtaining direct ownership of such share in the settled property as relates to, or is fairly represented by, that interest.

(7) In subsection (4)(a), “politically exposed person” means a person who is—

(a)an individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than [F1428 the United Kingdom or another EEA State,F1428]

[F1428 (i)the United Kingdom, or

(ii)an EEA state,F1428]

(b)a family member of a person within paragraph (a),

(c)known to be a close associate of a person within that paragraph, or

(d)otherwise connected with a person within that paragraph.

(8)Article 3 of Directive 2015/849/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 applies for the purposes of determining—

(a)whether a person has been entrusted with prominent public functions (see point (9) of that Article),

(b)whether a person is a family member (see point (10) of that Article), and

(c)whether a person is known to be a close associate of another (see point (11) of that Article).

(9)For the purposes of this section—

(a)a person is involved in serious crime in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere if the person would be so involved for the purposes of Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (see in particular sections 2, 2A and 3 of that Act);

(b) section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons) applies in determining whether a person is connected with another.

(10)Where the property in respect of which the order is sought comprises more than one item of property, the reference in subsection (2)(b) to the value of the property is to the total value of those items.

Definitions used in section 362B 2

the court

(10) In this section, sections 120 to 140 and Schedule 3 “the court” means—

(a)the Court of Session, where a trial diet or a diet fixed for the purposes of section 76 of the Procedure Act in proceedings for the offence or offences concerned is to be, is being or has been held in the High Court of Justiciary;

(b)the sheriff exercising his civil jurisdiction, where a diet referred to in paragraph (a) is to be, is being or has been held in the sheriff court.

Defined in s.119(10) · see it in the full Act
hold

(2) The cases in which a person (P) is to be taken to “hold” property include those where—

(a)P has effective control over the property;

(b)P is the trustee of a settlement in which the property is comprised;

(c)P is a beneficiary (whether actual or potential) in relation to such a settlement.

Defined in s.362H(2) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 362B 8

Hajiyeva v National Crime Agency

[2020] EWCA Civ 108 · 5 February 2020Limits

The court treated the requirements in section 362B as the relevant preconditions for making a UWO, focusing on the income and politically exposed person requirements. (see paras [19]; [37]) The income requirement was satisfied where the evidence gave reasonable grounds to suspect that known lawful income was insufficient to fund the property. The court did not need to rely on the foreign conviction. (see paras [37]-[44]) The court identified the politically exposed person and serious-crime routes as alternative statutory bases for the relevant condition. (see paras [19]; [38]) The politically exposed person condition was met because the husband fell within the definition and the appellant was his family member. (see paras [19]; [29]) The court accepted that a foreign conviction might, in an appropriate case, support suspicion of insufficient lawful income or serious crime, subject to fundamental legal limits. It was unnecessary to rely on the conviction here. (see paras [38]-[40]) The court interpreted the politically exposed person definition by reference to the status of the person occupying a prominent public function. (see paras [20]-[29]) The words concerning entrustment focus on the status of the individual, not the mechanism by which the prominent public function was conferred. The statutory geographical exclusion concerns functions in the United Kingdom or another EEA State. (see paras [23]-[29]) The appellant was treated as a politically exposed person because she was a family member of the relevant politically exposed person. (see para [29]) The court applied Article 3 of Directive 2015/849/EU to determine whether a person was entrusted with prominent public functions and related statuses. (see paras [13]; [24])

National Crime Agency v GKC (No 2)

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

The relatively low statutory threshold for obtaining a UWO was treated as a factor increasing the potential seriousness of public identification at the investigative stage. (see paras [12]; [22]-[24]; [67])

National Crime Agency v GKC (No 1)

[2026] EWHC 573 (Admin) · 13 March 2026Interprets

The court applied the requirement for reasonable cause to believe that the respondent holds the property and that its value exceeds £50,000. These conditions formed part of the statutory preconditions for maintaining the unexplained wealth order. (see paras [5]; [45]) The court applied the income requirement: reasonable grounds had to exist for suspecting that known lawful income was insufficient to acquire the property. That requirement was satisfied on the evidence. (see paras [5]-[6]; [44(viii); [45]) The provision was identified as an alternative route to the income requirement where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that property was obtained through unlawful conduct. The judgment’s conclusion rested on the statutory criteria being satisfied overall. (see paras [5]; [45]) The provision identifies politically exposed person status as one route to the serious-crime requirement. The judgment proceeded on the alternative route concerning reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement in serious crime. (see paras [7]; [45]) The court applied the serious-crime requirement by asking whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement in serious crime by the Respondent or a connected person. The requirement was satisfied. (see paras [7]; [31]; [44(viii),(xiii)]; [45]) The provision imported the meaning of involvement in serious crime from section 2(3) to (5) of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The court used that cross-reference when analysing overseas money laundering and dual criminality. (see paras [9]-[10]; [44(xi)-(xiii)]) The court applied the cross-reference to sections 1122 and 1123 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 to determine the meaning of a person connected with the respondent. A parent was included, but an uncle was not. (see para [8])

What each judgment says about section 362B is in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Amendments and notes

3 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Amendments

  1. F1426Word in s. 362B(3) inserted (15.5.2022) by Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (c. 10), ss. 47(a), 69(1); S.I. 2022/519, regs. 1(3), 2
  2. F1427S. 362B(3)(b) and word inserted (15.5.2022) by Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (c. 10), ss. 47(b), 69(1); S.I. 2022/519, regs. 1(3), 2
  3. F1428S. 362B(7)(a)(i)(ii) substituted for words (E.W.) (31.12.2020) by The Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/742), regs. 1, 107(8); 2020 c. 1, Sch. 5 para. 1(1)