Represented the alleged controller of a large-scale ‘long firm’ fraud, where the value of the fraud was set at over £500,000. This benefit level was attributed to each defendant. Following legal argument the Defendant – despite his alleged greater role – was ordered to repay £5,000, considerably less than was ordered from each of his co-defendants. Birmingham Crown Court

Birmingham Crown Court

Acted for the Defendant in confiscation proceedings arising from a prosecution in which other lawyers were instructed. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to an allegation of conspiracy to import Class A Drugs, with the Crown alleging that he had benefitted to the amount of £1.5million from his involvement. Following legal argument the Defendant was made subject to a confiscation order that required him to repay £1.

Manchester Crown Court

Represented one of a number of Defendants following a plea to what was alleged to be the largest ‘car-ringing’ operation ever investigated in the North of England. The subsequent Proceeds of Crime Act application was – at the time – the largest of its type ever pursued. The Defendant alone was subject to an application well in excess of £1million and, after legal argument, was ultimately ordered to pay less than £8,000.

Stoke Crown Court

Acted for the Defendant in confiscation proceedings arising from a prosecution in which other lawyers were instructed. Following conviction for conspiracy to supply Class A Drugs, the Crown sought to confiscate the Defendant’s assets as the proceeds of crime. This was successfully contested on the basis that the Defendant’s assets were in fact the result of his ownership of a string of highly-profitable sado-masochistic ‘dungeons’, and that these could not be seized as the proceeds of crime in the absence of a prosecution for the offence of living off of immoral earnings.

Maidstone Crown Court

Acted for the Defendant in confiscation proceedings arising from a prosecution in which other lawyers were instructed. Confiscation proceedings were stayed in the Crown Court after legal argument on the basis that to proceed with them would be ‘Unfair’. The Department of Work and Pensions sought review of this decision to in the Administrative Court, where the decision of the Crown Court judge was upheld. This remains the first and only case in which an application under the Proceeds of Crime Act have been stayed on the ground that it would be ‘unfair to try’.

Croydon Crown Court / Royal Courts of Justice (Queens Bench Division)

Defended a highly successful wealth management specialist who - separate to his legitimate business - had perpetrated a ‘Ponzi fraud’ by collecting funds in excess of £14,000,000 from investors on the basis that the monies would be kept in a risk free, high-interest account from which regular interest payments would be made, but which funds were in fact used by the defendant for his personal enjoyment.

Southwark Crown Court