Arvindar Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Angela Garcha & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch)
R v Rebecca Thompson
6 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1244
Court of Appeal
Rebecca was ordered to pay money she got unfairly. The judge made a mistake using the wrong law to figure out how much she owed. The mistake was corrected, and the order to pay was cancelled.
Key Facts
- •Rebecca Thompson pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonestly making false representations in November 2015.
- •She impersonated her husband's aunt to access investment funds (£32,000) and disability living allowance (£1,511.10).
- •In February 2016, she received a 20-month concurrent sentence.
- •In October 2019, a confiscation order of £35,922.47 was made against her, based on a 45% beneficial interest in her husband's property.
- •Thompson appealed against the confiscation order, citing the court's misinterpretation of her beneficial interest in the property.
Legal Principles
In sole ownership cases, the burden of proof lies on the non-owner to demonstrate the existence of any beneficial interest.
Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17
For confiscation proceedings under POCA, 'property is held by a person' if they hold a legal estate, beneficial interest, or power in it.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), section 84(1)(b) and (2)(a) and (f)
In determining beneficial interest in property, the court should consider whether there was any common intention between the parties.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The lower court erred by applying the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 instead of the correct provisions of POCA section 84 and failed to consider the principles in Stack v Dowden and Jones v Kernott.
The confiscation order was quashed.
The Crown conceded that remittal was unnecessary due to time passed, likely sums involved, and the appellant's terminal illness.