R v. F.
Mr F was a taxi driver, but had worked hard to buy a couple of buy to let properties. Mr A had initially been investigated for a mortgage fraud because it was alleged that he had failed to declare relevant information on his application concerning his income, this is something that he had always denied. During the course of the proceedings, the prosecution served a restraint order upon Mr F. We were instructed by Mr F's sister to make an application to vary the restraint order to allow restrained assets to be released so that they could be paid back to the our client, Mr F's sister, so she could continue with her purchase of a house.
The prosecution resisted our application and refused our reasonable requests and did not acknowledge the evidence that we had served prior to making the application. They maintained the position that the money in the accounts that had been restrained was the product of criminality.
We made an application to the court and the judge found in our clients favour. The prosecution were criticised for holding onto the money when it was plain to see its provenance. In those circumstances the prosecution were ordered to pay our costs.
For further advice and action please call or e-mail us on the details provided on this page.
