Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 December 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009.


Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009

My Lords, I, too, contributed to the Proceeds of Crime Bill when it went through this House. I have also had some practical experience of the Act in operation. As previous speakers have said, it was designed to deal with large-scale crime and terrorism. The architecture of the Act is that an investigator seizes an individual’s assets, and it is then for that individual to prove that those assets are not the proceeds of crime. Was it seriously to be the case that the investigators employed by these various agencies—local authorities and so on—should have the power to seize assets and throw the burden of proving that they were legitimately obtained upon the person concerned? That is what the Act was all about. It had nothing to do with the trivialities that the order seems to have brought forth.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
715 c904 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Fraud Financial institutions Home Office Local government Powers Proceeds of crime Money laundering Staff Transport for London Serious Fraud Office Department of Health Gangmasters Licensing Authority Department for Regional Development (Northern Ireland Executive) Intellectual Property Office NHS Counter Fraud Service
Legislation
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2009
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk