Dare v Crown Prosecution Service
22 Oct 2012
The High Court has re-affirmed again that s328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) should be read narrowly.
They have confirmed that the arrangement which the prosecution are pointing at as the basis for the charge must actually result in an identified individual or entity receiving or retaining criminal property.
An agreement to set up an arrangement in the future was not sufficient to ground a prosecution under s 328, even as an attempt.
In the case before the High Court, the undisputed facts were that Mr Dare, was offered the chance to buy a car for £800. He knew that the seller had been involved with stolen cars in the past and his intention was to buy the car and re-sell it for a profit.
After test-driving the car, which was in fact stolen, he asked for time to raise the money and later met the seller for a second time with the intention to buy the car, but for a reduced price. However, the sale never actually went ahead.
Mr Dare was found guilty of entering into an arrangement under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The car was stolen and therefore criminal property, he knew or suspected that it was stolen, and he intended to sell it on for profit.
By arranging to purchase the car with that intention, he knew he was facilitating the acquisition of criminal property by whoever bought the car from him.
The prosecution focused on the intended on-sale of the car, rather than the attempted acquisition of the car by Mr Dare.
On appeal, the Crown Prosecution Service argued that the arrangement between Mr Dare and the seller was a section 328 arrangement because it facilitated the future acquisition of the car by another person, even though no future purchaser had yet been identified.
The High Court found this to be a strained interpretation of section 328. It drew attention to the fact that section 328 says that the arrangement must be one which the defendant knows or suspects ‘facilitates’ the acquisition of criminal property by another.
It does say not ‘will facilitate’ or ‘may facilitate’. One must be able to say that at the moment the arrangement is concluded, it facilitates the acquisition by another person. That other person must therefore be identifiable.
The High Court said that what Mr Dare had done could not be said to be an arrangement that facilitated the acquisition of criminal property by another; a price had not been agreed and a purchaser had not been identified. Mr Dare’s conviction under section 328 was quashed.
Loading...