UK Supreme Court Case Note: The Meaning of 'Criminal Property' in POCA 2002

Abstract

The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger PSC and Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson JJSC) heard the case of R v GH (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 24 (22 April 2015) on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lloyd Jones LJ, Irwin and Green JJ) reported at [2013] EWCA Crim 2237. Unanimously allowing the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), giving the only judgment Lord Toulson held at para 47 that the “character of the money did change on being paid into the respondent’s accounts.” This case involved fraud. It had been perpetrated through the Internet via four “ghost” websites falsely pretending to offer cut-price motor insurance. To execute his plans, B used associates who opened bank accounts for transmitting the proceeds generated by the scam and H was an associate of this nature. The Supreme Court held that section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) does not require property to constitute criminal property before an arrangement came into operation because such a construction is likely have serious potential consequences in relation to banks and other financial institutions.

Keywords: Actus Reas, Banks, Criminal Property, DPP, HKSAR, Fraud, Money Laundering, POCA 2002, UKSC