The Independent Sentencing Review (part 2), led by David Gauke, presents a significant step toward reshaping how the justice system responds to serious and organised financial crime. Some of the recommendations set out a pragmatic and measured pathway for tackling the real motivator behind much of this offending: profit.
It is no doubt welcomed — by victims, law enforcement, and organisations committed to tackling economic crime — that sentencing policy is being reviewed through the lens of disruption, asset recovery, and long-term prevention, rather than punishment alone.
The current regime
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, courts may make a confiscation order after a conviction where the defendant is found to have benefited financially from criminal conduct. The court assesses the criminal benefit and determines the available amount the offender is able to pay. The lesser of the two becomes the amount of the order.
Before a confiscation order is made, prosecutors may apply for a restraint order — a powerful pre-emptive measure that freezes a defendant’s assets to prevent their dissipation during the investigation and trial process. These are particularly important in complex fraud and economic crime cases, where there is a high risk of funds being hidden or moved overseas.
If a defendant fails to satisfy a confiscation order, the court may impose a default sentence — a term of imprisonment served in addition to the original sentence. The length of this default sentence is determined by the amount outstanding and is intended to encourage payment.
In some cases, parties may later seek a re-determination of the available amount, typically where circumstances have changed, or new assets come to light. While this provides a mechanism for adjusting the order, the process can be slow and procedurally complex, often requiring separate hearings and detailed financial evidence.
A renewed focus on financial disruption
The Review recognises that for many organised criminals, imprisonment may be perceived as just another stage in a “criminal career journey.” For this reason, disrupting the financial benefits — both during and after incarceration — is vital to changing that calculation.
Among the key recommendations:
- Strengthening the confiscation order regime
Confiscation orders are the principal means by which the state can deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime, however the review recognises that there are challenges with the enforcement of confiscation orders.
The Review highlights the importance of ensuring that confiscation orders are imposed on those who have derived considerable financial benefit from their crimes, so that such orders are used proportionately and targeted at individuals with the means to pay.
A more assertive and better-enforced confiscation regime is at the heart of the Review’s vision.
Specific proposals include:
- Ensuring confiscation orders are proportionate and realistic, reflecting an offender’s actual financial circumstances — not simply the theoretical benefit figure.
- Improving enforcement mechanisms and technology, particularly through better access to international cooperation and intelligence-led asset tracing.
- Increased resourcing in Police Asset Confiscation Enforcement Units, to support better and more proactive enforcement of orders, and a focus on training of judiciary and law enforcement.
Such changes reflect the growing consensus that asset recovery is just as important as retribution, especially in crimes where victims have suffered direct financial loss. A confiscation order can, of course, be combined with an order compensating victims for their losses.
2. Extending and enforcing SCPOs
Serious Crime Prevention Orders (SCPOs) are orders imposed post-conviction to prevent future offending; they are defined in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. These orders can restrict movement, financial activities, communication, and associations — and are particularly useful for monitoring high-risk individuals after release from custody. Presently, orders are imposed for a maximum period of 5 years and must specify a start and end date. It is common for SCPOs not to start until offenders are released from prison. However, many serious, organized crime groups are able to operate from inside prison walls.
The Review proposes:
- Extending the maximum duration of SCPOs, currently capped at five years, to allow for meaningful post-sentence monitoring in serious cases, bringing them into line with Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs).
- Utilise SCPOs to enforce stringent monitoring and conditions for incarcerated offenders.
- Tackling breaches of SHPOs effectively and reduce inconsistency in the response to breaches of SHPOs by training law enforcement.
Given that many economic criminals continue their operations whilst in custody, and resume offending once released, these proposals represent a clear attempt to provide long-term protection to the public and victims alike and create a deterrent to further offending.
3. A criminal receivership scheme
Perhaps the most innovative proposal in the Review is the recommendation for a new “criminal receivership” model, which would be aimed at criminals who have gained significant wealth from their crimes. A receiver would be appointed to manage or sell the offender’s assets in satisfaction of the order. This model would allow the seizure of assets over any timeframe without granting debt relief.
The proposed criminal receivership scheme shares some similarities with the existing ‘criminal lifestyle’ provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which permit the court to make certain assumptions about the origin of assets. These provisions allow the confiscation order to cover all assets deemed to have been obtained through criminal conduct, unless the offender can provide evidence of a legitimate source.
In the proposals, there is also a recommendation of “suspended criminal receivership”, which would encourage defendants to comply with other court orders, such as fine payments, confiscation orders and other ancillary orders.
Such an approach would arguably increase the likelihood of effective asset recovery — particularly in high-value or complex cases involving hidden wealth or overseas holdings.
Takeaways
While the proposals are bold, the Review is careful to emphasise the importance of proportionality and fairness. Overly aggressive financial penalties — or custodial sentences triggered by unrealistic orders — risk undermining both the justice system’s credibility and its capacity.
There is an acknowledgment that default prison sentences for non-payment should remain a last resort, not an automatic outcome of flawed assessments or administrative delay. Orders must be enforceable, and tailored to each case, if they are to contribute meaningfully to justice.
Taken together, these recommendations present a serious and timely effort to refocus the justice system on the financial realities of organised crime. They speak not just to punishment, but to prevention and restitution — outcomes that victims and wider society rightly expect.
For those engaged in tackling complex financial and economic offences, the Review provides both a challenge and an opportunity: to ensure that the proceeds of crime are no longer protected by inefficiency, and that sentences reflect the full harm caused — financial, reputational, and emotional.
