Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Report of the Appointed Person for England, Wales & Northern Ireland

Other publications

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Report of the Appointed Person

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides powers for police and customs officers to seize and then apply for the forfeiture of cash which is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct, or which is intended to be used in unlawful conduct. To support the power to seize cash, there is a power of search. This is a power to search private premises where a police or customs officer has lawful authority to be present, and a power to search a person. Search powers should normally only be exercised where prior judicial authority has been obtained. In all cases where judicial approval is not obtained prior to a search of either private premises or a person and cash is not seized or cash is seized but is not detained for more than 48 hours, then the police or customs officer concerned must prepare a written report and submit it to an independent person referred to in the statute as "the Appointed Person". The Appointed Person must prepare a report each year giving his opinion as to circumstances and manner in which the powers of search are being exercised in cases where he has received a report and making any recommendations he considers appropriate.

Title: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Report of the Appointed Person for England, Wales & Northern Ireland 2008-09
Author: Andrew Clarke (the Appointed Person)
Number of pages: 12
Date published: June 2009
Availability: Download full report PDF 230Kb

During the year 2008-09 Officers of HM Revenue and Customs have made 525 seizures amounting to £13.3 million and have conducted 15 searches of which 12 have resulted in reports to the Appointed Person.

Police officers have made 5398 seizures and seized £82.9 million. During the year they made no searches resulting in reports to the Appointed Person.

In addition cash seizures were made by members of staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency who have been designated with the powers of a constable or customs officer under section 43 of the Serious Organised Police Act 2005, and by the five Regional Asset Recovery Teams. The Serious Organised Crime Agency made 137 seizures and seized £9.2 million. The Regional Asset Recovery Teams made 40 seizures and seized £1.3 million.

All 12 reports received relate to searches of the person, and none relate to premises.

All 12 reports were of searches conducted at Heathrow Airport.

In all cases senior officer approval was obtained prior to the search.

In all of the reported searches nothing was seized. In 6 reports monies in excess of the minimum amount were found, but an explanation was forthcoming which was acceptable and so no seizure was made.

At the conclusion of the searches the individuals searched have been asked to self-select their ethnic background. A full analysis is contained in Appendix II of the full report.

Statistical details extracted from the reports can be found in Appendix II of the full report.

The number of reports received this year (12) is lower than last year (47). No reports were received from police compared to 3 last year.

Conclusions

The reasons for the relatively low numbers of reports from HM Revenue and Customs have been set out in previous reports as a greater concentration on activities at frontiers rather than inland (using powers under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 rather than the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002). The explanation from the police is that criminal investigations usually lead to an arrest for drug trafficking, theft or money laundering and police invariably use their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to obtain warrants and seize property including cash.

HM Revenue and Customs and the police were reminded of the statutory requirement to provide reports in appropriate cases to the Appointed Person by the Home Office on my behalf in January 2007 and February 2009.

The explanations made in the individual reports continue to be satisfactory and there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being properly followed in accordance with the Act.