subject: How To Combat Organised Crime [print this page] Crime is a huge issue that affects the lives of many law abiding people. Crimes of passion, of greed and hate, will always take place and are very difficult to prevent. However, where crime involves amassing wealth, by taking away this wealth it is possible to prevent a certain amount of crime from continuing.
Confiscation was introduced as a method by which it was hoped that crime would no longer pay. If a person could not explain how he obtained any of his wealth he would lose it by default. This was targeted at crime lords and organised criminals who were often thought to be beyond the law. They amassed enough criminal wealth so that if caught committing fraud or fencing stolen goods they could employ the services of expensive criminal defence lawyers and criminal defence forensic accountants to minimise the sanctions imposed upon them.
Now the prosecution authorities look less at the specifics of the crime on its own, and often simply ask how the accused obtained his money. If it was obtained illegally, it will be impossible for him to explain its source and it is not enough to provide vague explanations. Detailed accounts are necessary. If the money was obtained legally but no records kept, this can pose just as much a problem as when criminal proceeds are the issue. Any wealth is still assumed to be the proceeds of criminal activity - or it might be revenue that is avoiding being taxed. In this case it is taxed, along with interest and penalties so that the result is the same. The authorities still take away the money.
The confiscation system was strengthened considerably in 2003 with the enforcement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This was responsible for introducing measures which have been called "Draconian" by some commentators and "grossly unfair" by many others. The intention was to create a system that allowed wealth to be taken away from the organised criminals, by being able to make assumptions that any wealth was from crime. It was up to the accused to explain where any wealth came from and if he couldn't it would be taken away. The trouble is that the assumptions can be made on any person deemed to have a criminal lifestyle and the criteria for this are fairly light.
If a person has committed several crimes, or committed a crime over a period of six months, or if the crimes are for amounts adding up to at least 5,000 - then the person is deemed to have a criminal lifestyle and all assets held and every transaction for the previous six years are deemed to be criminal.
This might mean that a shoplifter who gets caught two or three times could potentially stand to lose every asset including his family home. Not only that, but he would have to explain every receipt into his bank account and every item of expenditure for the previous six years and if he could not, might be deemed to have "hidden assets" and ordered to pay these over. If an order made within a confiscation is not paid on time, a substantial additional prison sentance can result.
The confiscation of wealth does work for serious criminals, but can be seen as "overkill" in the cases of some smaller crimes.
