Proceeding contribution from Jeremy Wright (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [Lords].
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why the Assets Recovery Agency has not been as successful as we all might have hoped is that when cases are brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act, they take a long time and are defended to the hilt—often by the use of changes of counsel or the extensive use of the Human Rights Act? It could be argued that that is why those cases have not set the necessary precedents to allow the ARA to recover as much money as it, and we, would like. If that is the case, what confidence can any of us have that the transfer of responsibilities to the Serious Organised Crime Agency will be any more successful?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 461 c668
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Assets Civil proceedings Assets Recovery Agency Fraud Electronic surveillance Evidence Firearms Inchoate offences Proceeds of crime Offensive weapons Right of search Anti-social behaviour orders Serious Organised Crime Agency High Court Serious crime prevention orders Information sharing
- Legislation
- Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:46:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402407
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402407
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402407