Understanding the Key Changes in Schedule 14 of the Crime and Policing Bill: A Comparison with POCA 2002
The Crime and Policing Bill introduces significant reforms to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) through Schedule 14, which amends key aspects of confiscation proceedings. These changes focus on defining the principal objective of confiscation orders, refining criminal lifestyle provisions, and altering how recoverable amounts are determined. Below, we explore the key amendments in Schedule 14, Parts 1 to 3, and how they compare with the current POCA regime.
Schedule 14, Part 1 – The Principal Objective
Schedule 14, Part 1 establishes a clear statutory objective for confiscation orders: to deprive criminals of their illicit financial benefits. The amendments require courts, prosecutors, and financial investigators to act in a manner that furthers asset recovery. Additionally, tainted gifts must be included when assessing a defendant’s means. The changes aim to prioritise financial accountability over procedural discretion.
Currently, POCA does not explicitly define a principal objective, relying instead on a general framework for asset recovery. Courts have discretionary enforcement powers, whereas the new amendments ensure all decisions align with the principal objective. By making the recovery of criminal assets the focal point, these reforms provide clearer statutory guidance and prevent offenders from shielding assets through transfers.
Schedule 14, Part 2 – Criminal Lifestyle Provisions
Schedule 14, Part 2 expands the definition of a criminal lifestyle, adjusts the threshold for its application, and strengthens assumptions about illicit wealth. The amendments reduce the threshold for establishing a pattern of criminal activity from three to two other offences, making it easier to classify individuals under criminal lifestyle provisions. Additionally, courts must determine at an early stage whether these assumptions apply.
The reforms also introduce a more structured approach to the Serious Risk of Injustice Test, requiring courts to explicitly consider the defendant’s explanations. Previously, POCA required three or more offences to determine a criminal lifestyle, and the criteria for the Serious Risk of Injustice Test were less defined. These amendments ensure that repeat offenders face stricter confiscation measures while still offering legal safeguards against unfair assumptions.
Schedule 14, Part 3 – Provisions Concerning Amount to Be Paid Under a Confiscation Order
Schedule 14, Part 3 introduces a more dynamic approach to determining and enforcing the recoverable amount under confiscation orders. Courts must now consider all prior court orders affecting a defendant’s property when assessing the recoverable amount. Additionally, hidden assets and tainted gifts are explicitly included in confiscation calculations, ensuring that no unlawfully obtained property is overlooked.
Further, the amendments allow for adjustments based on inflation and asset appreciation, preventing criminals from benefiting from delays in enforcement. The conditions for reconsidering benefit amounts have also been strengthened, enabling courts to reassess previously confiscated property if new evidence emerges. Under the current POCA regime, recoverable amounts are based on assets identified at the time of conviction, and there is no automatic mechanism for adjusting asset values over time. These changes close existing loopholes and ensure that the full financial benefit of crime is recovered.
Final Thoughts: Strengthening POCA’s Asset Recovery Framework
The changes introduced in Schedule 14, Parts 1 to 3 of the Crime and Policing Bill significantly enhance the enforcement and effectiveness of confiscation orders. These reforms:
Ensure that all decisions align with asset recovery objectives.
Make it easier to classify repeat offenders under lifestyle assumptions.
Prevent criminals from concealing assets or benefiting from delays in enforcement.
