The Proceeds of crime act and how it is more of a money making scheme than a

punishment

Draconian definition below,

“rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: Draconian forms of

punishment”.

The proceeds of crime act is so often called Draconian by the press and many lawyers
and is a get rich quick scheme for the powers that be the outright misuse of power is
shocking and does not give right to a fair trial in any respect to a defendant to rip a
defendants whole life about just of the basis of assumptions is a disgrace and if the
state is that desperate for money then I worry for the world I can understand if you
have been watching a defendant over a period of time and calculate the benefit from
what you see or the amount of substance in drugs related case but to deem a
defendants whole life criminal because he commits one crime and has money is very
far out and far fetched at the point of restraint you have no real evidence whatsoever
and disbarring funds obviously is a crippler for anyone and to go back 6 years and say
that all funds ever transacted are gained from a criminal lifestyle even worse this is a
real injustice within the justice system and a real abuse of power the statement
creating assumptions for a criminal lifestyle is of no high credibility does not go into
any detail and cannot warrant any such assumption in any way shape or form this is a
highly developed societal scam on peoples lives. You should be tried for the crime at
hand not the amount of money you have If police Soca have been watching a
defendant i.e and operation and or catch a defendant blatantly selling drugs and they
have been charged for other drug related cases previously then by all means they are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and therefore a need for a criminal life assessment is
just and deserved but still you cannot claim back money that has vanished or money
that is in the defendant s possession based of assumptions that is piracy on every level
in an infringement of human rights.

So routine in fact that prosecutors do not bother to prepare a comprehensive Section

16 Statement anymore it seems! The Section 16 Statement are statements of
information that provide the reasons, but not necessarily the evidence, for applying
criminal lifestyle assumptions to a defendant’s assets. The Statement will set out the
level of criminal benefit based on the crimes that have been committed and on the
assumptions that other activities are also criminal. The Statement may also indicate
the assets that the defendant has to satisfy any confiscation order and even give an
indication, again not necessarily with evidence, of any assets thought to be hidden
away
Any relief for the defendant must be found in the general jurisdiction of the High
Court, available in all actions and identified in CPR Part 3.4 to strike out the
claimant’s case as abuse of process. As said, it is not thought that the bringing of civil
proceedings where a prosecution has failed is, by itself, an abuse. But it is possible to
envisage circumstances where it might be. For example, if the prosecuting authority
and a defendant reach an agreement as to benefit from crime in the making of a
confiscation order, it might well be an abuse for the same prosecuting authority to
then commence civil recovery proceedings which, on the facts, go behind that
agreement (see by parity of reasoning Lunnon [2005] 1 Cr App (S) 24, where an
agreed basis of plea for sentence restricted the Crown’s assertions in confiscation
proceedings thereafter).

The Restraint Order will have been made with no opportunity

for the suspect to say anything. By s42(3) he has the power to
apply to the Court to discharge or vary the Order. The Judge
will hear the arguments which may, if appropriate, also include
human rights arguments about the proportionality of the
Order. Either party (prosecution or defence) may appeal to the
Court of Appeal, s43.

2) Restraint Orders

Freeze all non movable assets at the beginning of an investigation,

before charge and on suspicion alone. By issuing a Restraint Order
the suspect is punished before charge and before trial and
prevented from paying for legal advice or assistance to overturn or
vary the Restraint Order. If not charged or found innocent at trial
the innocent victim is prevented from seeking compensation. This is
a gross injustice.

3) Fair Trial

At trial the defendant, unless on State Benefits, is unable to obtain

Legal Aid and because their assets are frozen is unable to pay for
legal representation or expert witnesses. Justice for the defendant is
impossible in these circumstances.Whilst the Crown has virtually
unlimited resources, is adversarial and stands to gain financially
from a confiscation order if their prosecution succeeds

4) Confiscation Order
The prosecuting authority receives a cut of the proceeds seized
from people convicted and subjected to confiscation orders and
senior staff receives bonuses

Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, says the “manifest injustices” in confiscation

proceedings that were compounded by the setting of targets. “Once
you start setting targets you are saying, ‘Never mind justice.’
Bodies like RCPO have to make a judgment on the cases they
pursue — if they make that judgment on the basis that they will
receive a lot of money, it calls into question whether justice is going
to be done.

The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2nd October 2000
fundamentally influences all aspects of policing. The Act incorporates
aspects of the European Convention for Human Rights into UK Law. As
a result, British citizens who feel that their rights have been violated now
have redress in UK courts.
The Act safeguards the rights of the individual against interference by
Public Authorities, i.e. the police. All policing tactics and actions will be
judged against the principles of the Act. Any action taken by the police
will be judged against the following principles which are:-
1.Was the action taken legal, i.e. was it covered by a statute, code etc?
2.Was there a necessary and legitimate aim for the action taken, i.e.
public safety, national security etc?
3.Were the action(s) taken proportionate to the legitimate aims being
pursued, i.e. was the interference necessary in a democratic
society?
The Human Rights Act will sit over all current and future domestic
statutes. In practice this means that aspects of the Act will be
considered in all judgements.

Her Majesty The QueenBuckingham PalaceLondon SW1A 1AA