How Defendants Must Respond to POCA Allegations

Section 17 POCA: The Defendant’s Response to the Statement of Information

In confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), much of the groundwork is laid in the statement of information—the prosecution’s detailed breakdown of what the defendant is said to have benefited from and what assets are said to be available.

But what happens next? Section 17 POCA 2002 sets out how the defendant must respond. This is a critical step in the process that can either clarify the issues or result in allegations being treated as accepted, with serious consequences.

What Is the Statement of Information?

Before diving into section 17, it's worth recapping what the statement of information is. Under section 16 POCA, the prosecution submits this statement to the Crown Court during confiscation proceedings. It sets out:

• The alleged criminal benefit (from general or particular conduct), and

• The property said to be available to satisfy a confiscation order.

This forms the basis of the court’s determination of the benefit figure and the available amount.

Section 17 POCA 2002: The Defendant’s Response

Section 17 allows the court to direct the defendant to formally respond to each allegation in the prosecution’s statement of information.

Specifically, the court may order the defendant:

• To indicate the extent to which each allegation is accepted (section 17(1)(a)), and

• To give particulars of any alternative version or facts he wishes to rely upon where an allegation is not accepted (section 17(1)(b)).

This is designed to narrow the issues, avoid fishing expeditions, and ensure that both sides are clear on what is genuinely in dispute.

Why It Matters: Treating Allegations as Conceded

Under section 17(2), any part of the prosecution’s statement that the defendant accepts can be treated by the court as conclusive—no need for further proof or evidence.

But more significantly, if the defendant fails to respond properly to the court’s order, then under section 17(3):

The defendant may be treated as accepting every allegation in the statement except:

• Allegations he has responded to, and

• Any allegation that he has benefited from his general or particular criminal conduct.

In effect, silence or non-compliance can be taken as acceptance—except when it comes to criminal benefit, which still must be proved by the prosecution (or inferred via lifestyle assumptions).

What Does a Compliant Response Look Like?

The court can specify how the defendant should respond—whether in writing, orally, or by annotated copy of the statement. This is set out in section 17(4).

A compliant response usually includes:

• Clear admissions or denials, point by point

• Supporting documents or explanations for contested items

• A signed statement or schedule referencing evidence relied upon

The court also retains flexibility. Under section 17(5), any order made under this section can be varied at any time.

Important Protection: Section 17(6)

There is an important safeguard in section 17(6):

“No acceptance under this section that the defendant has benefited from conduct is admissible in evidence in proceedings for an offence.”

This protects the defendant from self-incrimination. An acceptance in confiscation proceedings cannot be used against them in a future or related criminal prosecution.

Practical Tips for Defence Solicitors and Experts

• Respond in full and on time. Even a partial failure can lead to allegations being treated as admitted.

• If the client is in custody, ensure arrangements are made so they can review the statement and give instructions.

• Use forensic accountancy support where financial allegations are technical, exaggerated, or based on flawed assumptions.

• Keep a copy of the response in the trial bundle—section 17 responses often become key evidence in contested hearings.

Conclusion: Why Section 17 Matters in POCA Confiscation

Section 17 POCA 2002 is not just a procedural detail—it can fundamentally shape the outcome of a confiscation hearing. A well-prepared, detailed response can knock out large parts of the prosecution’s case or shift the burden back to them. A failure to respond properly can result in allegations being treated as accepted, increasing the benefit figure or available amount dramatically.

In short, section 17 is where the defence puts its case on the record—and it must be done carefully and strategically.