Crime is a problem that society will always have a hard time dealing with. It is difficult to prevent murders or crimes involving emotions of any kind from happening. However, it is possible to reduce crime involving ill-gotten wealth simply by taking it away from criminals.
Confiscation was introduced as a method by which it was hoped that crime would no longer pay. If a person could not explain how he got some of the wealth from him, he would lose it by default. This was aimed at crime lords and organized criminals who were often thought to be outlaws. They amassed enough criminal wealth that if they were caught committing fraud or fencing off stolen goods, they could employ the services of expensive criminal defense attorneys and forensic criminal defense accountants to minimize the penalties imposed on them.
Now, prosecution authorities look less at the details of the crime alone, often simply asking how the defendant got his or her money. If it was obtained illegally, it will be impossible for you to explain its origin and it is not enough to give vague explanations. Detailed accounts are necessary. If the money was obtained legally but no records were kept, this can pose just as much of a problem as when it comes to criminal proceeds. It is still assumed that any wealth is the proceeds of criminal activity, or could be tax-avoidable income. The tax on it plus interest and penalties will add up to the same result. The money continues to be confiscated by the authorities.
The confiscation system was considerably strengthened in 2003 with the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Act introduced and strengthened many measures that many say are too harsh and sometimes even “unfair”. The intention was to create a system that would allow wealth to be taken from organized criminals, by assuming that any wealth came from crime. It was up to the accused to explain where any wealth came from, and if he couldn’t, it would be taken from him. The problem is that assumptions can be made about anyone who is considered to have a criminal lifestyle and the criteria for this are quite loose.
If a person has committed multiple offences, or has committed an offense within a period of six months, or if the offenses are for amounts totaling at least £5,000, then the person is considered to have a criminal lifestyle and all assets you own and all transactions from the previous six years are considered criminal.
This could mean that a thief who is caught two or three times could lose all assets, including his family’s home. In addition, he would have to account for every credit on his bank statements and every outgoing debit for the six years prior to the start date of the proceedings. If an order made within a forfeiture is not paid on time, it may result in a substantial additional prison sentence.
Wealth confiscation works for serious criminals, but can be seen as “overkill” for some misdemeanors.