On 3 November 2023, a Confiscation Order was made against Elie Taktouk, in the sum of £4,549,965, by Southwark Crown Court, under s.6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The Crown Court set a period of 8 years in prison in default of payment. The defendant was ordered to pay the Confiscation Order by 3 May 2024, the maximum 6-month period allowable for payment from the date of the Confiscation Order.
An enforcement hearing was listed by the City of London Magistrates Court for 24 May 2024 Court after non-payment. The hearing was adjourned to 27 September 2024 on application of the defendant, and again to 11 October 2024 after the Court could not accommodate the listing.
The Court had to consider whether it should now issue a warrant to commit Elie Taktouk to prison, an issue complicated somewhat by his impending early release pursuant to regulations which advance the release of serving prisoners (the SDS40 measures).
The Confiscation Order represents a finding that the defaulter has the capacity to pay, and it is not open to a defaulter to argue in the enforcing Court that he cannot do so.[1] Before the Court may issue a warrant, it must:
- be satisfied that default is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect (which is met by the finding of assets and a failure to realise them to pay the order); and
- have considered or tried other enforcement methods but take the view that they are inappropriate or would be unsuccessful.[2]
The defendant sought to postpone the issue of a warrant pursuant to s.77 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, until after his permission to appeal (which is ongoing), and thereafter his appeal, if permission were granted.
On 11 October 2024, the Court refused the defence application and decided to issue the warrant, thus activating the defendant’s default sentence.
Importantly, the District Judge noted that an appeal does not create a stay of enforcement. Having decided that there had been wilful refusal or culpable neglect, she considered no other enforcement method would be appropriate bearing in mind the defendant’s previous contempt of court orders (for which he received 7 months in prison, in July 2020), and his deliberate obstruction of investigation into his assets.
Recovering proceeds of crime from fraudsters can be immensely difficult. The latest asset recovery statistical bulletin[3] records that the value of confiscation order impositions in the financial year ending March 2024 was £307.9 million, yet only £128.5 million was recovered, falling by 28% compared to that which was recovered in the last financial year.
The case team at Edmonds Marshall McMahon was led by Kate McMahon with the able assistance of Mai Holdom and Jane Guthrie.
Kennedy Talbot KC were instructed by EMM for prosecution. Peter Caldwell was instructed by Peters and Peters for the defendant
October 12th 2024
[1] R(On the application of Butler) v Leeds Magistrates’ Court v CPS [2023] EWHC 3420 (Admin)
[2] S.82 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980
[3] Asset recovery statistical bulletin: financial years ending 2019 to 2024 – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
