Twin peaks – leading cases in 2010

There have been two cases of significant interest to practitioners in the field of criminal litigation and money laundering compliance this year, write Peter Binning and Charles Elton of Corker Binning. The first, in February, was the case of Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 31; [2010] Bus LR 1514 about the remedies available to a customer faced with a bank failing to carry out instructions and the second, in July, was the case of R v Geary [2010] EWCA Crim 1925, in which the Court of Appeal gave some useful guidance on the interpretation of “criminal property” for the purposes of “arrangements” under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

Peter Binning (+44 (0)20 7427 0106, pb@corkerbinning.com) is a partner and Charles Elton (+44 (0)20 7353 6000, ce@corkerbinning.com) a paralegal at Corker Binning in London.

Defining the scope of ‘criminal property’ for the purposes of Part 7 of POCA 2002

The issue before the Court of Appeal in R v Geary [2010] EWCA Crim 1925 was the scope of the words “criminal property” in the context of section 328 POCA.