This report is disturbing.
Like many JPs I have signed dozens of applications to seize criminal property. Over time these amount to a lot of money.
There must be something not-quite-right about authorising the police to seize money that is, or may be, the proceeds of crime, and then allowing them to keep half or thereabouts of the proceeds.
That is likely to tempt officers to skew their enquiries in the direction of stashes of cash, but worse, it is an encouragement to corruption once they have their mitts on the readies.
Seized cash should go into the Consolidated Fund, along with all the rest of HMG's petty and not-so-petty cash. Can anyone justify the present rules? Damned if I can.
I would probably point out that in the case in point the Audi may have been worth £25k when new but the Daily Mail is being deliberately salacious by not pointing out that its present value at 7 years old would be maybe a fifth of that. The fact it is being used as a pool car and has therefore prevented the general ratepayer having to fund a new car for the pool seems to me to be a very sensible solution. Hence I don't find the report particularly disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAs for the principle of the police getting half of confiscated POCA assets - you write your post as if it's the individual officers themselves on some form of incentive scheme getting to keep the money for their own purposes. A lot of POCA money is used by forces to support community schemes which wouldn't other be funded.
Nobody is suggesting that individual officers profit from seizures, but it is wrong in principle to allow a public body to bulk up its funding from penalties imposed on the public. Money that is nobody's soon becomes anybody's. Transparency is critical.
ReplyDeleteOk, but who benefits from the realisation of the value of property seized by the police as part of an investigation which is later the subject of either a forfeiture order by the convicting court or the Mags under the Police Property Act 1897? Genuine question as I don't know the answer.
ReplyDeleteWhen my bench had a visit from our local Borough Commander a few years ago I well remember him saying that the police get to keep 10% of what they seize, not 50%, and there are restrictions on how they can use it. I don't see an issue with the proceeds of crime being used to fight crime.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/public_services/police/500368.html mentions the subject, and is a miracle of weasel words and spin.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It seems the practice of the police benefiting financially from property seized in the course of investigations has been going on for years - maybe even since 1897 - but no one really follows the money.
DeleteHere's an example of an unusual POCA seizure in my local county:
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/northamptonshire-police-set-up-ebay-site-to-sell-ill-gotten-gains-1-5639191
The article states POCA proceeds go 50% to HMG and the other 50% is split between the police, CPS and courts. So it appears the courts have an incentive in this process too!
the suggestion that the money might be used for a 'community' scheme and this is ok rather begs the question.
ReplyDeleteThe money might be used for some favorite scheme - eg the local youth football team but it will still create a hunger for more of the same.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo. Police dependants should be cared for out of general taxation. There is no logic in this idea. Money that has been seized should be treated he same as any other public funds.
DeletePerhaps the Bystander team might like to consider the current on-street parking regime called Civil Parking Enforcement. All penalty charges cash accrues to the councils, who basically treat all PCNs as invoices, not allegations. This is probably the biggest scam in the country but never seems to get much attention from the nomenclatura
ReplyDeleteDavid Sheen
ReplyDeleteI met this Judge in the Thamesmead court. I had been accused of assaulting 3 police officers and drunk and disorderly both of which were false. The police had tried to stop me getting in my own house and 1 put me in a headlock which I span out of and put him in 1 this was a reaction as we used to do this to each other when I was younger. The policeman called for backup and wasn't listening to me I had 8 officers jump on me drag me to a van take me to cell and beat me up. When they found out it was my property they brought false charges, I went to court 3 times at Greenwich 3 times at Woolwich as they were not attending. judge Cooper summoned the officers and the Doctor to attend, When the trial was about to go ahead my barrister told me the officers were willing to drop Charges and would I be willing for an out of court settlement I agreed. Anyway the Judge stopped me giving evidence stating the police are not on trial and sent me to jail although I had never been in trouble before, This affected my livelihood and made me upset and angry for years. They really should replace Judges with decent honest people.
This isn't the place to discuss your case.
DeleteHave a look on Google for Custody Cooper
When did this happen David? Last week,last month? 8 officers and they beat you up in the cells did they?
DeleteSorry, but I shall stop this topic here. This is not the place to establish facts - that would be a court.
DeleteIt should all go into a centra lpot and be divided later.
ReplyDeleteAs for cars etc, no problem if they are used- it would be more bother trying to flog them
W Yorks PCC is whistling in the wind if he thinks he can renegotiate POCA against the likes of Home Office, HMRC, HMCTS, National Crime Agency etc. Extra money could be found by axing PCCs though!
ReplyDeleteI suspect that, left to their own devices, members of HM Constabulary regard pursuing the ill-gotten gains of criminals as being of lesser importance. I suspect further that members of HM Government, deciding that "crime doesn't pay" would make a catchy slogan or something, decided that it was outrageous that criminals were able to make a living at crime, and were able to view a spell inside as a mere occupational hazard, and that they should therefore "encourage" police forces to pursue the ill-gotten gains, so that while Johnny Crook was banged up, the wife and kids weren't able to live it large on his "earnings".
ReplyDeleteViewing with an appropriate amount of skepticism the likely response of police forces to a directive saying "take more stuff away from criminals", said Government decided to provide an incentive.
This news story caught my eye as odd. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-26937700
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gather, the wife collected £500k in life insurance policy proceeds from the faking of the death.
The article says that she's paid back 'in excess of £500k' and he's got an outstanding order against him of £680k, for a total of £1.2m being sought under POCA.
Even if most of us will have never touched a dishonestly obtained pound note in our lives, would we be able to *prove* that all of our assets had been obtained using legitimate means if the full force of the Crown is working on the assumption that you have not?
It seems a bit sinister...