No Conviction But Losing Home?

#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.


5 March 2012 Last updated at 11:37 GMT Arran Coghlan: Court orders businessman to lose home

A businessman, cleared of three murder charges and drugs dealing, has been ordered to hand his home to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca).

The High Court ruled that Arran Coghlan, 40, from Cheshire, used drug dealing profits to buy his £1m home.

"The court ruled Arran Coghlan's family home was funded by criminal activity, now he must hand it over," said Soca.

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

A Soca statement said the agency's civil recovery application stated that Mr Coghlan had derived his home through drug trafficking and money laundering over a significant period.

Charges were dropped against Mr Coghlan in 2010 when he was accused of shooting dead Stephen Akinyemi in a fight at his home in Alderley Edge in February.

Mr Coghlan was cleared in 1996 of shooting Chris Little dead at the wheel of his Mercedes in Marple, Stockport.

Seven years later Mr Coghlan stood trial for the murder of drug dealer David Barnshaw, who was kidnapped and forced to drink petrol before being burned alive in the back of a car in Stockport in 2001. He was again cleared.

Last June saw the collapse of a multi-million pound drugs conspiracy case involving Mr Coghlan.

BBC News - Arran Coghlan: Court orders businessman to lose home
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.
 
#5
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.
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
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?
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.
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
#13
shame, its not as much fun then.


it does confuse me how they can prove to a court that
Coghlan's family home was funded by criminal activity
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.
 
#16
Poor wee chap losing his home. Would feel sorry for him but really don't give a shiny shite. It's amazing what he has got away with in the past.
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#18
it does confuse me how they can prove to a court that but they cant seem to prove that he is a criminal.
They don't need to. When ARA was merged with SOCA they grew a set and became mates with HMRC Prosecutions. So the deal is, if Mr Coghlan is legit he will be able to show a paper trail indicating where he earned the money and tax paid on those earnings. If not "Nice house. We'll 'ave it". I'm as concerned as anyone about the 'innocent until proved guilty' thing but this is a bit like the old Conspiracy law. "We say you did it, you prove you didn't".
 
#20
dodgy geezer gets done by dodgy law
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top