Controlling and Coercive Behaviour: Widening the Net
On 15 July 2016, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (the “Committee”) published a report entitled Proceeds of crime (HC 25). The report was highly critical of the effectiveness of the regime relating to the proceeds of crime. (Read Ed Smyth's blog on the report here)
The Committee therefore made a series of recommendations which, in its view, would improve the recovery of assets gained through criminal activity. On 21 November 2016, the Committee published the Government’s response to its report. In summary, the Government has rejected many of the Committee’s more far-reaching recommendations.
The Committee’s report and recommendations
In its July 2016 report, the Committee found that (as at September 2015) there was £1.61 billion outstanding from confiscation orders. This was up from £1.46 billion in September 2013. The Committee also noted that enforcement agencies collected £155 million from confiscation orders in 2014–15, but that the cost to administer this collection process was more than £100 million. Finally, the Committee concluded that at least £100 billion was laundered through the UK every year. The Committee was, in short, critical of the proceeds of crime regime in the UK.
In light of its findings, the Committee made a number of recommendations, including the following:
The Government’s response to the Committee’s report and recommendations
As has been set out, on 21 November 2016 the Committee published the Government’s response to its report. Many of the Committee’s recommendations were rejected. The Government is not, for example, minded to create a specialist confiscation court, arguing that restricting “the available venues to a few specialist centres is likely to lead to far greater waiting times because of the limited number of court rooms, judges and staff”. The Government also rejected the Committee’s call that the non-payment of a confiscation order should be made a separate criminal offence. The Government states that it “is not convinced that the possibility of being charged with a new criminal offence would act as an incentive to pay an order to serious and organised criminals”.
The Government has, however, confirmed the following:
As we have noted previously, the confiscation regime is used inconsistently by enforcement bodies. Some of those agencies seeking to use the confiscation regime (such as the Environment Agency) are the most poorly resourced to manage the complex legal and evidential burden of these cases. The consequence is that restraint and confiscation cases are frequently the subject of appeal.
The Government is hoping that the proceeds of crime regime can be improved through piecemeal, rather than revolutionary, reform. Given the enormousness of the problems facing the law enforcement agencies working in this area, it remains to be seen whether this limited approach will be sufficient. A more thoughtful, better co-ordinated, and properly resourced approach to the confiscation regime in the UK is desperately needed.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility