Two ways to prove that property derives from a crime.

1. In Mohammad Ahmad v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2009] HCJAC 60 The Scottish Court of Appeal has ruled that property will be considered criminal property under the Proceeds Of Crime Act (POCA), if the evidence of how it is handled

1. ‘gives rise to the irresistible inference’ that it could only have been the product of crime.

2. However,
   1. the specific crime that generated the assets does not have to be identified in court.

3. The case involved
   1. the laundering of millions of pounds through a travel agency and money service bureau, with the appellant facing charges under sections 329, 327 and 330 of POCA.

4. At the original trial the Judge gave directions to the jury that

1. ‘it is not necessary for the Crown to prove the source of such proceeds provided of course that the source was criminal.’

5. The appellant claimed that for a laundering charge to proceed the Crown had to prove that
   1. the property was the benefit from a specific criminal offence, or at least the benefit from a specific class or type of criminal offence.

6. The Court of Appeal followed previous case law and held that there are two ways to prove that property derives from a crime. These are:

1. showing that the property is derived from conduct of a specific kind or kinds, and that conduct of that kind or those kinds is unlawful, or
2. providing evidence of the circumstances in which the property is handled, which give rise to the irresistible inference that it can only be derived from crime.