R v Seager; Blatch [2009] EWCA Crim 1303; [2009] WLR (D) 215; The Times, July 16th 2009.
The Court of Appeal (Aikens LJ, Hedley,Hickinbottom JJ) applied the dicta of the House of Lords in the case of R v May [2008] UKHL 28; [2008] 1 AC 1028 (decided after these confiscations orders were obtained), that for the purposes of s 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it was necessary that the defendant himself obtained property as a result of his offending, even if jointly or through a third party at his behest, and his benefit was the value of that property. Overturning the decision in R v Neuberg (unreported) that turnover equalled the defendant’s benefit and following May, they held that just because a person had power of disposition or control over property did not mean that he owned it.
There was nothing to suggest that any different approach to confiscation issues was to be taken in relation to defendants whose criminal conduct consisted of contravening directors disqualification orders or undertakings, or that the basis on which the corporate veil could be pierced when examining what benefit the defendant gained, was any different in such cases. A Court could only pierce the corporate veil if an offender attempted to shelter behind a corporate facade to hide his crime and benefits from it, if he did acts in the name of a company which constituted a criminal offence which led to the offenders’ conviction, or if the transaction or business structures constituted an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transaction or structure so as to deceive third parties or the courts.
(Alex Munro)
|
