Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

...or have a good reason why you have it should Plod call round.

"A man lost £67,000 in cash found at his home after being unable to explain how he came by it.

Police seized the cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act even though the unnamed man was never charged with a criminal offence.

Officers were called to an address in Port Talbot, south Wales, after reports of an attempted burglary at the property.

While making inquiries at the address, which is in the town’s Sandfields area, they discovered the cash, South Wales Police said."

from:
http://timworstall.com/2009/05/05/it-aint-yours-any-more-bupkiss/

It is becoming a police state, so I guess they have to finance it somehow.  

[Kevin Wood]

How long before they start rifling through our bank accounts and deciding that we don't need the money therein?

Then again, one wonders if there's more to this than meets the eye? They must have a suspicion about this guy, surely?

Kevin

[Martin_1962]

I expect it is now in those Policemans pockets. I cannot see how they can take it wothout proof of crime

[Martin_1962]

Oh and this really does sound scarey - what are they going to do next?

[3.2omegaestate]

The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers,  and HMRC officers.

Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).

There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.

Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.

Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)

Drawing a comparison

If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.

The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.

The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.

And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money?  

[Del Boy]

Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it  

[KillerWatt]

It is becoming a police state,

While I am of the train of thought that we are getting there, let's be realistic.....you don't have £67,000 in your house in hard cash and not be able to account for where it came from.

[crazyjoetavola]

The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers,  and HMRC officers.

Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).

There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.

Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.

Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)

Drawing a comparison

If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.

The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.

The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.

And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money?  

Ahh clarity, factual information and balance - the foundations  of good sense

[STMO123]

It is becoming a police state,

While I am of the train of thought that we are getting there, let's be realistic.....you don't have £67,000 in your house in hard cash and not be able to account for where it came from.

Correct!

[Martin_1962]

He wasn't arrested, nor convicted, yet they say he got it illegally, how can they take it without proof?

Just seems wrong to me.

[Martin_1962]

BTW not defending ANY crime but it is innocent until proven guilty.

Was it confiscated or seized as evidence+?

[Martin_1962]

Seized as evidence I can accept, but just taken not.

To me it sounds like a lot of cash in hand work.

[Tony H]

Don't do banks to be honest mrs does but thats her choice. Most of my money is all here in a large safe. It's all been hard earnt so no-one else is having it  

Err where did you say your safe was located?

[Nickbat]

The proceeds of crime act you refer to is a power granted to officers,  and HMRC officers.

Cash seized has to be suspected to be gained by/ from unlawful means (the title of the act says it all).

There does not need to be a criminal conviction or investigation at that point but it will instigate one. The confiscation order is made by the magistrates court acting in their civil capacity.

Martin, they can take it without proof of a crime, as I have said.

Think of it like this, £67,000 that has possibly not been subject to taxation. A rough calculation is that is unpaid taxes of £17600. (20% of 36000 and 40% of 26000 - taking into account a 5k personal allowance)

Drawing a comparison

If 10 omegas (each worth £1760!) were stolen and found in a compound would you not want them seized as evidence.

The seizure of the money is the physical evidence, which starts the investigation, no different to seizing 10 omegas which is the physical evidence of the crime.

The police have significant powers all of which have to be justified and accounted for when used. There will be an audit trail as well.

And lastly, why do you feel Martin, that the officers would want to pocket the money?  

I see your point, but your analogy is faulty. In the case of the 10 Omegas, you state that they are stolen. So, it's a prima facie case that the person possessing them has committed a crime. In the case of the £67,000, there would appear to be no prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed (obviously we don't know all the facts in this case, we are just surmising). Seizing cash on a hunch, is not, IMHO, a very sound way to apply the law.

With the limited amount of information on this particular case, I would currently tend to side with Martin's views on this.

[Turk]

I wouldn't get too anti-plod on this one. Sandfields, Port Talbot is about 20 mins drive from me and although I've not been there for a couple of years, the last time I was passing through it wasn't exactly a "Des Res" area. The kids would steal hubcaps of moving cars.
On olden day maps it would have been marked "Here be Drive-by's"