|Title||Evidence and Variation of Confiscation Orders: R v O'Flaherty (Carl Anthony) (Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 29th of October 2018)|
The appellant (O'Flaherty) (O) was appealing against two confiscation orders. In short, this case demonstrates that a judge can increase the value of a confiscation order made pursuant to s. 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) where adequate evidence is presented. The increase resulted from the fact that the Crown had discovered a further asset (property) that could be realized. O contended that a third party had an interest in the property and the value of the confiscation orders should not be increased. After questioning O and the third party the judge concluded that O's claim was not made out and the judge had not erred. The reasoning is of interest to all those in this field.
|Keywords||Confiscation Orders, Law, Financial Crime, Proceeds of Crime|
|Journal||International Commentary on Evidence|
|Journal citation||15 (1), p. 20180004|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||doi:10.1515/ice-2018-0004|
|Published online||24 Nov 2018|