In RCPO v Johnson (QB – 25 July), a company director (J) had been convicted of cheating the public revenue in relation to a large VAT MTIC ‘carousel’ fraud.
He was sentenced to ten and a half years’ imprisonment, and the court imposed a confiscation order of £26,000,000.
The RCPO formed the opinion that a company which J controlled had been the owner of a Cessna aircraft, which had been transferred to another businessman (B), and that this transfer was a gift of a realisable asset within the scope of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss 74 and 80.
The QB reviewed the evidence in detail and accepted this contention, holding that ‘when (J) lost his rights in the aircraft there was a gift within the terms of the Act.’
On the evidence, the sum of $461,268 was recoverable from B as a `tainted gift’ within CJA 1988 s 74.
Why it matters: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 includes provisions designed to counter attempts to avoid the scope of a confiscation order by giving assets away.
The QB upheld the RCPO’s view that when the director relinquished his rights in the aircraft, this was a ‘tainted gift’ and that the value of the gift was recoverable from the donee.
In RCPO v Johnson (QB – 25 July), a company director (J) had been convicted of cheating the public revenue in relation to a large VAT MTIC ‘carousel’ fraud.
He was sentenced to ten and a half years’ imprisonment, and the court imposed a confiscation order of £26,000,000.
The RCPO formed the opinion that a company which J controlled had been the owner of a Cessna aircraft, which had been transferred to another businessman (B), and that this transfer was a gift of a realisable asset within the scope of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss 74 and 80.
The QB reviewed the evidence in detail and accepted this contention, holding that ‘when (J) lost his rights in the aircraft there was a gift within the terms of the Act.’
On the evidence, the sum of $461,268 was recoverable from B as a `tainted gift’ within CJA 1988 s 74.
Why it matters: The Criminal Justice Act 1988 includes provisions designed to counter attempts to avoid the scope of a confiscation order by giving assets away.
The QB upheld the RCPO’s view that when the director relinquished his rights in the aircraft, this was a ‘tainted gift’ and that the value of the gift was recoverable from the donee.
