Summary of Taktouk v R [2025] EWCA Crim 71
Background
Elie Taktouk was convicted in 2021 at Southwark Crown Court of 10 fraud-related offences, including fraud by abuse of position, fraud by representation (under the Fraud Act 2006), and using a false instrument (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981). These offences stemmed from a failed property development project at 33 Ennismore Gardens, Knightsbridge, in which investors were misled and funds were misappropriated.
Taktouk was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment and disqualified from being a company director. In November 2023, the court issued a Confiscation Order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, requiring him to pay £4,549,925.29 within 3 months, with an 8-year default sentence for non-payment.
Grounds for Appeal
Taktouk appealed the Confiscation Order on four grounds:
1. Benefit figure miscalculation – He argued that the trial judge wrongly included funds recovered from Pierre-Adrien Colliac (a co-defendant in the scheme) in the benefit calculation, resulting in double recovery.
2. Application of statutory assumptions – He claimed that the judge’s approach in applying the “criminal lifestyle” assumptions led to an unfairly high benefit figure.
3. Available assets miscalculation – Fresh evidence from his brother, Dr. Wassim Taktouk (executor of their late father’s estate), allegedly showed that he had no hidden assets.
4. Prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence – Private investigator reports commissioned by the prosecution supposedly contained information contradicting the claim that he had substantial hidden assets.
Court of Appeal Decision
Grounds 1 and 2 (Benefit Figure & Assumptions): Rejected. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding double recovery or statutory assumptions.
Ground 3 (Available Assets): Accepted. The court ruled that the fresh evidence from Dr. Wassim Taktouk was relevant and should be considered in fresh confiscation proceedings.
Ground 4 (Non-Disclosure): Rejected. Although the prosecution’s failure to disclose certain reports was an error, the court found that it was not enough to quash the order outright.
Outcome
The Confiscation Order was quashed.
The case was remitted to Southwark Crown Court for fresh confiscation proceedings, with directions that the benefit figure remains unchanged, but new evidence regarding the available amount must be considered.
The case was returned to HHJ Milne KC for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
The Court of Appeal upheld the original benefit figure but acknowledged that the available assets calculation might have been incorrect.
Fresh evidence about the appellant’s true financial position warranted a review of the Confiscation Order.
The court reinforced the importance of proper disclosure in confiscation proceedings but stopped short of finding a miscarriage of justice.
