No Conviction But Losing Home?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by JoeCivvie, Mar 5, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Before I carry on -I am not a Guardian reader and I believe in capital punishment for all crimes from spitting on the pavement and upwards.

    However, I find the fact that a court can rule that someone's money has been gained illicitly but without them having been convicted of anything rather worrying, and distlinctly Blair'ish.


    The bloke may well be a scrote of the first order (or not), but swingeing penatly without trial? Sounds like the thin end of the wedge to me.
     
  2. My recommendation would be not to conclude anything until you've read the judgment. The British press have a habit of distorting judicial decisions to suit their own agenda.
     
  3. Hmmm...agree it's very dodgy if the guy hasn't been convicted of anything.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. fec me! reading his past is like a season of the Sopranos!
     
  5. I think smoke & fire come to mind, if this guy could prove he'd come by the cash honestly there would be no problem! Lets be fair if it was a Pikey being done for an unspecified accumulation of money through nicking stuff (as is their wont) even though it was unproven, would you care?
     
  6. Yeah, smoke and fire sprang to mind at first, but in this country we do try and establish the facts in court before punishing people...it's fairer that way.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Surely it will a case of reverse Kerching££ when he eventually wins that his Human Rights were violated by the ARA? (If they do indeed take his house)
     
  8. I am all for criminals losing whatever they spent illegally gained money on but, until convicted, he is not a criminal.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. i'm afraid if you read the above article you'll discover that this is no longer the case.
     
  10. Assuming the article contains all pertinent details. I suspect they're getting him for not having paid tax or somesuch.
     
  11. This appears not to have been done through Proceeds of Crime Act, but via a seperate civil order.

    It has thus been through a Judge and court.

    "Cheshire businessman loses the family home he bought with profits of crime



    1 March 2012

    A High Court Judge has ruled that a Cheshire businessman used illicit profits to purchase his family home and must hand it over to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

    The Recovery Order was granted today against 40 year old Arran Charlton Coghlan by the Right Honourable Mr. Justice Simon at the Royal Courts of Justice.

    In its civil recovery application, SOCA submitted that Mr. Coghlan had derived his £1m home through drug trafficking and money laundering over a significant period.

    SOCA’s investigation shows that Mr Coghlan purchased his home in 2000 through a third party for £180,000 yet had no legitimate means of income. Evidence shows the third party did not charge rent, all bills were in Mr Coghlan’s name and, shortly after purchasing the property, extensive security, interior building and renovations were carried out. All were paid for in cash.

    The case was referred by Greater Manchester Police to the then Assets Recovery Agency.

    A SOCA spokesperson said: "SOCA will use all the powers at its disposal to stop those who try to benefit from illicit profits. The Court has ruled that Arran Coghlan’s family home was funded by criminal activity, now he must hand it over."

    SOCA | Cheshire businessman loses the family home he bought with profits of crime
     
  12. It should be noted that the burden of proof in a civil recovery case is much lower than a criminal case. This is why shops will often pursue shoplifters through the courts for civil recovery of losses, even if the criminal case founders.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. shame, its not as much fun then.


    it does confuse me how they can prove to a court that
    but they cant seem to prove that he is a criminal.


    he does look like a bit of a cheeky chap though. burning people alive and shooting them in their homes (allegedly), the wee scamp.
     
  14. [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Maybe the time is up for these feckers too! ;-)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. I'd want those "geo-phys" boys from Timeteam to do a good check round the garden before buying that place.
     
    • Like Like x 2