Unprosecuted mortgage fraud & confiscation

I have written a rather involved technical article on my own website blog dealing with the relatively common situation in which a convicted defendant is subject to confiscation on the basis that he does have a 'criminal lifestyle' and it appears that he may have previously obtained a mortgage advance by fraud although he has not been prosecuted for that.

For example where a person has been convicted of a drug dealing offence and, as a result of a subsequent financial investigation, it comes to light that he appears to have been dishonest in a mortgage application.

Frankly the article is not going to be of interest to most accountants - but I know there are some people who follow this discussion group who will be interested in the topic.

Essentially in the blog article I am saying that, in the light of the Supreme Court's analysis of a mortgage advance in R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51, the benefit arising under the statutory 'criminal lifestyle' assumptions is identical to the benefit which would have been found had the defendant been convicted of the mortgage fraud (i.e. the relevant percentage of the "appreciation").

A point of interest is that, based on my analysis, that benefit exists if the defendant holds the (residential) property after the date of his conviction for the (other) offence - whether or not the mortgage was obtained after the 'relevant day'.

For those who want to get involved in the detail the article is Unprosecuted mortgage fraud in criminal lifestyle confiscations.

David

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