Dominic Bardill appeared in the High Court for the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis successfully opposing an application for permission to Judicially review an order for forfeiture of approximately £71,000, €1,790 and $2,568, made by City of London Magistrates Court pursuant to s.298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Mrs Justice Cutts DBE refused permission to the Claimant, a Chinese National, who was in the UK as a student, to judicially review the decision of the Central Criminal Court to uphold the Magistrates Court‘s order.

During a search of the Claimant’s home on 12th October 2016, Officers recovered and seized the cash mentioned above. The majority of that cash was found rolled and wrapped in plastic bags inside a suitcase made of metal. An application for forfeiture of the cash was made by the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, and granted by City of London Magistrates Court on 3rd December 2018. The Claimant appealed this decision under s.229 of POCA.

The Claimant had originally said that the money had come from his mother in China. However, due to the quantity of cash, the manner in which it was stored, evidence found on the Claimant’s computer, inconsistencies in the defence and that the Claimant had hundreds of thousands of pounds in multiple accounts, the Court were satisfied that the money was the result of criminal activity, particularly money laundering.

The Claimant appealed, and lost. He then applied for permission to judicially review, claiming, among other things, that the Court had erred in failing to establish what alleged criminal activity the money had been laundered from and failing to consider that it may have been activity that was a crime in China but not in the UK (as sending money out of China was restricted at the time). The Claimant also argued irrationality.

Dominic opposed the application as an Interested Party. He argued in both written and oral submissions that the grounds were not arguable. The Crown Court had heard overwhelming evidence that gave rise to an ‘irresistible inference’ that the cash derived from money laundering, and that it was the only ‘reasonable inference’, which satisfies the necessary test.

Dominic’s full profile: https://greatjames.co.uk/members/dominic-bardill/