35 Haymeads Lane contact@lease-forfeiture.co.uk 0800 772 0910

How do you define criminal seizing in London, Greater London?

The act brought into play as a part of the defendant's prosecution is known as Criminal Forfeiture. This act is one against the individual and calls for the government to indict the asset used or obtained from the crime in London alongside the defendant. In case the property is declared forfeitable by the jury, a forfeiture order is issued by the court. If the London government receives criminal forfeiture, they have the permission to seize assets of the individuals convicted of misconduct given that those assets have been attained through or are linked to criminal activity.

In London, criminal forfeiture claims to prevent criminals from benefiting from their crimes. This is contrary to civil forfeiture that primarily goes after the assets that are suspected of being associated with criminal acts, and does not require any criminal conviction. Even though criminal forfeiture is relatively broad, what sort of assets can be seized by the government have certain limits. As per the Courts, due to this limitation, co-conspirators are restraint from joint and several forfeiture liability. Joint and several liability permits the London government to collect the amount pertaining full liability from any of the co-conspirators in Lambeth, Kensington and Chelsea, Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets or Hammersmith and Fulham. This is regardless of their role in the crime or the amount they collected. By its nature, such a rule would in turn allow seizure of "untainted" assets by the government that amount to the same as a co-conspirator's "tainted" assets.

Even though, in tort law, joint and several liability may make sense, it still does not seem to fit well within the criminal law framework in London. The doctrine not only disregards the rudimentary principle in criminal sentencing of proportionality, but it also undermines the remedial and punitive purposes of criminal forfeiture by granting those who received the revenues to possibly escape from misconduct in London having to give up their assets, while the ones who did not benefit end up being forced to hand over their assets. Not just this, but the idea of joint and several liability fails to comport with criminal forfeiture objectives. In London, criminal seizure guarantees that the asset used in the act of crime will not be repeatedly used for illegal motives. On the contrary, joint and several liability would assist in letting the government take property that had no role in the crime.