Can anyone in the legal profession answer this question?

drc

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/special-investigation-scandal-of-superrich-criminals-given-legal-aid-to-fight-fraud-trial-8352182.html

This is an article about two very wealthy men who are in jail for fraud, who have been ordered to pay back various sums of money (millions of pounds in money and assets). They have not done so, so they have had 10 years added to their jail sentence. They were also granted legal aid mounting into the hundreds of thousands of pounds while their assets (which were later "confiscated") were frozen.

Can I ask someone with legal knowledge how it is possible not to pay back money or assets that have been "confiscated" by law? If the assets are in the UK, isn't it simply a case of taking them back by force of law? Also, if by the end of their extra 10 year sentence they still have not paid back the assets/money acquired illegally, are they just released with no come back?

John_Pierpoint

I am not a lawyer, but presumably all their assets are frozen (a sort of suspended bankruptcy) to prevent them being spirited away over seas.

Suspects are innocent until they are proven guilty, so someone has to finance their defence in the interests of justice and to avoid endless challenges against the verdict.

I agree that were they to be found guilty then the costs of their spurious defence should be deducted from their wealth as well as there getting a longer sentence.

As far as tracking down their ill gotten gains still in the UK, what do you suggest - thumbscrews?

MacMickster

For what its worth, I don't think that the extra time in jail means that they get to keep the proceeds of their crimes. The offer of a shorter sentence was merely an incentive for them to come clean and save the authorities some work.

BobQ

MacMickster wrote: »

For what its worth, I don't think that the extra time in jail means that they get to keep the proceeds of their crimes. The offer of a shorter sentence was merely an incentive for them to come clean and save the authorities some work.

I agree. Also the courts can usually sequestrate assets held in the UK jurisdiction once they have been located.

I suspect in this case the problem is that either the money has been deposited in multiple accounts or using nominees where it is difficult to conclusively prove the money belongs to the prisoner. Or more likely the money is in a foreign account outside of the UK jurisdiction. In such a case the cooperation of the prisoner is needed to return the money or legal measures need pursuing in the other jurisdiction, and so the threat of a longer sentence is used.

BobQ

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, but presumably all their assets are frozen (a sort of suspended bankruptcy) to prevent them being spirited away over seas.

Suspects are innocent until they are proven guilty, so someone has to finance their defence in the interests of justice and to avoid endless challenges against the verdict.

I agree that were they to be found guilty then the costs of their spurious defence should be deducted from their wealth as well as there getting a longer sentence.

As far as tracking down their ill gotten gains still in the UK, what do you suggest - thumbscrews?

They have been found guilty! They are serving their sentence.

The issue seems to be that they appear to have valuable assets in UK but its difficult to prove they own the assets due to the complex trail of legal arrangements that exist.

chewmylegoff

drc wrote: »

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/special-investigation-scandal-of-superrich-criminals-given-legal-aid-to-fight-fraud-trial-8352182.html

This is an article about two very wealthy men who are in jail for fraud, who have been ordered to pay back various sums of money (millions of pounds in money and assets). They have not done so, so they have had 10 years added to their jail sentence. They were also granted legal aid mounting into the hundreds of thousands of pounds while their assets (which were later "confiscated") were frozen.

Can I ask someone with legal knowledge how it is possible not to pay back money or assets that have been "confiscated" by law? If the assets are in the UK, isn't it simply a case of taking them back by force of law? Also, if by the end of their extra 10 year sentence they still have not paid back the assets/money acquired illegally, are they just released with no come back?

my understanding is that once a confiscation order has been made against them then they will basically stay in prison forever until they pay the money. if they haven't paid at the end of their 10 year sentence "extension" it will just be extended again.


that they get legal aid does make some sense, at least in theory. the theory is that you freeze all of their assets and then the state pays their legal bill. if they get found guilty, then the legal aid gets clawed back as (on the grounds that they should have pleaded guilty, because they were guilty) but the full amount of their assets is still available to fund the confiscation of the proceeds of their crime.

of course you run into some trouble here when all of their assets are the proceeds of crime because they aren't going to be able to pay the legal aid back, so it would actually be better if they had to waste it all on legal fees.

furthermore, in practice you cannot actually just empty the bank accounts of a private citizen (particularly when those bank accounts are located in another country). they have to pay the amount over themselves.

if they don't the only recourse the state has is to chuck them in jail again. thus the revolving prison sentence which just keeps running until they pay.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

They have been found guilty! They are serving their sentence.

The issue seems to be that they appear to have valuable assets in UK but its difficult to prove they own the assets due to the complex trail of legal arrangements that exist.

that is not the issue - that is an issue with getting a confiscation order in the first place. the court will only impose a confiscation order for £X if the prosecution can prove to the court that the guilty party:

(i) received proceeds of crime of £X (note that this is not a profit - it is all money that has been involved in a criminal enterprise, so e.g. if I use capital of £1,000 to commit insider dealing, and the shares increase to £2,000 in value, then the proceeds of crime are £2,000 not just the illicit profit of £1,000)

AND

(ii) still has £X in their possession/control

so in this case the court has found that the individuals should and can pay £X, but the individuals have refused. thus they stay in prison until they do pay.

System

Why does this only apply to rich people?

If I refuse to pay a £25 parking fine can I be kept in prison for the rest of my life?
Wouldn't prisons be full up with lunatic obstinate old pensioners?

paulmapp8306

And anyone struggling to feed themselves and heat their homes, who can actually see prison life as a better one.

Generali

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why does this only apply to rich people?

If I refuse to pay a £25 parking fine can I be kept in prison for the rest of my life?
Wouldn't prisons be full up with lunatic obstinate old pensioners?

Not AIUI. You go to prison instead of paying the fine not as well as.

You have to try quite hard to go to gaol as the court will take the fine out of your earning/benefits first and then send a bailiff, a proper one that can kick your door in, to take possessions of yours to the value of the fine before sending you down.

Plenty of people do manage to go to prison for non-payment, often single women with children. I think for that group it's the no. 1 reason for imprisonment.

Courts are reluctant to imprison single mothers for obvious reasons. I suspect that leads a tiny number to believe that they can commit any petty crime and get away with it. The fines build up a bit and then all of a sudden the court runs out of patience.

zygurat789

chewmylegoff wrote: »

so in this case the court has found that the individuals should and can pay £X, but the individuals have refused. thus they stay in prison until they do pay.

And presumably there is no chance of parole which usually cuts the sentence down by 67%. Unless the prisons are full