R v Waller [2008] EWCA Crim 2037 - S 6 POCA.
- confiscation orders.
- calculation of "benefit" - evasion of duty payable on smuggled cigarettes.
- court is concerned with both the duty evaded and the purchase price of the goods.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Ahmad and Ahmed [2012] EWCA Crim 391 – S 71(4) CJA 1988 - (s 76(4) POCA).
- proceeds of crime – confiscation order. - benefit from offence - meaning of property obtained as a result of or “in connection with its commission”. - R v Waller was clearly wrong and the Court of Appeal was not rigidly bound by the doctrine of stare decisis. - the costs of committing an offence do not form part of the benefit of the offence; they cannot be deducted from the benefit, but neither should they be added. - R v Bagnall; R v Sharma [2012] EWCA Crim 677 – S72AA POCA – article 6(2) ECHR.
1) confiscation proceedings do not amount to the bringing of a criminal charge. - the mere fact that P accuses D, in confiscation proceedings, of a specific offence for which he has not been convicted and adduces evidence does not amount to the bringing of a new charge. 2) not unfair under article 6(1) ECHR to require D to establish that companies through which he was trading were carrying out lawful business. 3) not an abuse of process for P to decline to prosecute D for a particular offence, but rather to pursue him through confiscation proceedings. 4) where there are conflicting judgments, the Court of Appeal is bound by its most recent decision. - amount of a loan to D used by him to commit an offence should not be added in calculating his “benefit” under POCA. 5) not disproportionate to require D to show that the source of his assets were legitimate.