Failure to enforce sends message that crime can pay

The Raymond May case illustrates the problems with enforcement of confiscation orders and how the failure to take robust action to ensure a criminal's assets are seized can make a mockery of the system.

We have a defendant who has been convicted of a serious acquisitive crime and found to have benefited from his crime by millions and millions of pounds. Yet seven years after being ordered to pay over his criminal proceeds to the state, he still has them.

It is obvious that the longer a convicted defendant retains criminal proceeds, the greater his benefit. That doesn't just mean he can continue a lavish lifestyle, but the money could be used to fund further criminal activities and generate profits from which the original order can be paid off. The result is the impact of the confiscation order is minimised or negated.

So where does the problem lie? The answer is with the enforcing authorities - in this case, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office - because there can be no criticism that the law on the confiscation of criminal assets is weak. In fact, often the reverse is the case. It can mete out significant hardship in its attempts to net the proceeds of serious crime.

The legislation has survived most challenges in the courts because it is aimed at a problem that threatens society and the integrity of the financial system. However, no matter how effective investigators and courts are in making confiscation orders, the failure to robustly enforce them undermines the whole system. It also sends the wrong message to serious criminals who will think crime really can pay.

* Ivan Pearce is a barrister at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, which specialises in fraud cases and asset recovery.