Residential property valuations for confiscation

I have written a new article on my blog dealing with Residential property valuations for confiscation.

The article is quite long and probably not of interest to most members of this discussion group, so I won't reproduce it here.  My conclusion was:

So there is something to be said for getting the most appropriate value recognised by the court at the time the confiscation order is made by appointing a properly qualified and experienced valuer to provide a ‘Red Book market value’ taking into account costs of sale, and supported perhaps by an alternative ‘quick sale’ valuation.  I would suggest that the amounts due to secured lenders (the current redemption figure, including any early repayment or arrears penalties) should also be checked shortly before the confiscation hearing.

The article, by the way, does not go on to consider the realisation (i.e. sale) of residential property, such as the family home, following the making of a confiscation order.  That is a big issue which can involve issues of matrimonial law, trust law, property law and human rights (particularly under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

David

 

Comments
Old Greying Accountant's picture

David ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... out of interest, would it be better to own the matrimonial home as joint tenants, or tenants in common? (from the perspective of the innocent spouse!)

As a complete bumpkin on this type of law the logic would be it would be a lot harder to realise property held under a joint tenancy?

davidwinch's picture

I wouldn' t want to advise!

davidwinch | | Permalink

OGA

I wouldn't want to advise on that lest my PI insurers start getting twitchy!

The greatest difficulties have arisen where the property is held in the sole name of the defendant but his spouse or domestic partner (or ex) claims an interest either on the basis of a financial contribution or a non-financial contribution to the household (e.g. role in bringing up the defendant's children).

If the innocent spouse is 'on the deeds' and is claiming an equal share on that basis then the case of Gibson v Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office [2008] EWCA Civ 645 will be very relevant (Mrs Gibson succeeded in her claim to her 50% share notwithstanding more than a hint that she may have known her husband was engaged in crime).

There was a case in which a defendant owned one quarter of a property with his relatives owning the other 75%.  The relatives said they would not sell and so the defendant argued his 25% had no value.  The Court of Appeal rubbished that contention pointing out that confiscation required the valuation of his holding - not the realisation of it.  They also said he could apply to the courts to force a sale under property / trust law even against the wishes of the holders of the other 75%.  So the value of the defendant's share in the property was one-quarter of the value of the property.

David

Old Greying Accountant's picture

Fair comment ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... just wondering!

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
Group: Money laundering and crime
A group for discussing issues relating to suspected money laundering and other crime