Quinton Newcomb

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the issues that may arise following receipt of a whistleblower report from the perspective of the corporate entity (including limited companies, partnerships and LLPs) receiving the report. It covers the importance of a whistleblowing policy, initial assessment of the report, evidential considerations and responding to the report including self-reporting corporate offences.

This Practice Note explains how the court determines the recoverable amount under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) for the purposes of confiscation proceedings, ie the total value at the time of the confiscation order of all the free property held by the defendant (minus any priority obligations), plus tainted gifts. It considers proportionality and the relationship between benefit and the amount the defendant will be ordered to repay including any sum in respect of hidden assets and where the lifestyle assumptions apply. It then goes on to explain how the available amount of a confiscation order is calculated. The Crown Court’s power to make a determination regarding the extent of the defendant’s interest in a particular property and also those of third parties under POCA 2002, s 10A is also explained.

This Practice Note explains and analyses the use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in practice, including those obtained by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). It covers the test for approving a DPA (the interests of justice) and the importance of co-operation by the corporate. It considers what constitutes co-operation and the significance of corporate compliance programmes. The Practice Note includes reviews of the DPAs approved by the courts in the UK to date: the Standard Bank DPA, the Sarlcad Ltd DPA, the Rolls-Royce DPA, the Tesco Stores Limited DPA, the Serco Geografix Ltd (SGL) DPA, the Güralp Systems Ltd (GSL) DPA, the Airbus SE DPA, the G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Ltd (G4S C&J) DPA, the Airline Services Ltd (ASL) DPA, the Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited (AFWEL) DPA, the Bluu Solutions and Tetris Projects LTD DPA and the Entain PLC DPA, setting out the background to the DPAs, the terms and co-operation credit granted and some other notable features of these DPAs. It also highlights the key learning points from these cases including the importance of a company co-operating with the authorities and, where appropriate, self-reporting bribery and corruption or other serious offences in order to secure DPAs. It also deals with the approach of the authorities and the courts to calculating the financial requirements set out in DPAs to date and lessons from how the UK authorities work with foreign enforcement agencies on matters where criminal jurisdiction bites in multiple countries.

This Practice Note explains how confiscation orders are satisfied and, where they are not, how they are enforced in the magistrates’ courts. It covers the time period for the payment of confiscation orders and the extent to which time for payment can be extended. The court’s powers to impose an attachment of earnings order, a warrant of distress, or to appoint a receiver or the sale of seized personal property to satisfy a confiscation order are also explained. It introduces the ultimate sanction, which is a warrant of commitment whereby the defendant (offender) who has not paid the confiscation sum, is committed to prison to serve the term of imprisonment in default of payment. The way in which money paid in satisfaction of the confiscation order to the Justices Chief Executive of the magistrates’ court is applied, to whom and in what order is set out according to the regime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002).

This Practice Note reminds practitioners about important steps to take in responding to the confiscation statement, which is the statement issued by the prosecutor pursuant to section 16 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

This Practice Note explains the effect of the Supreme Court judgement in R v Ahmed; R v Field on the approach of the court to joint enterprise in determining benefit in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). It covers identifying the benefit in joint enterprise cases, assessing each defendant’s benefit from joint enterprise criminality and determining the recoverable amount with reference to proportionality following the House of Lords’ guidance in R v Waya.

This Practice Note explains the powers conferred by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Investigation) Order 2013 (2013 Order), SI 2013/2605 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Investigation) Order 2014 (2014 Order), SI 2014/1893 to obtain orders and warrants from the High Court and Crown Court to assist overseas authorities’ investigations into the recovery of the proceeds of crime. These are known as ‘external investigations’ under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It explains the individuals upon whom the powers in the 2013 Order and 2014 Order are conferred, summarises the making a request for assistance in an overseas investigation to the Secretary of State and to whom this will be passed, the scope of powers conferred under the Orders and the key investigatory orders available in respect of external investigations with a route map to their domestic equivalent and relevant guidance. It summarises the procedural rules which will apply depending on whether the investigative order is sought in the civil or criminal jurisdiction and offences in relation to external investigations provided for under the Orders.

This Practice Note explains the trial by single justice on the papers procedure under the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (MCA 1980) which was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). It explains which qualifying cases the single justice procedure can be used for and the process to be followed, including the requirement to serve a single justice procedure notice (SJPN). The time limits and process required by the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (CrimPR), SI 2020/759 are also explained.