Court of Appeal rules on confiscation order in fraud case

10 Feb 2025Court Report

The Court of Appeal addressed a confiscation order following a fraud conviction, focusing on available assets and procedural fairness

Background of the Case

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division recently addressed an appeal concerning a confiscation order imposed on Elie Taktouk, following his conviction for multiple fraud offences. The case originated from a private prosecution by Benherst Finance Limited and Chestone Industry Holding, resulting in Taktouk's conviction for fraud by abuse of position and fraud by representation under the Fraud Act 2006, as well as using a false instrument under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Conviction and Sentencing

In August 2021, Taktouk was found guilty of ten offences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Additionally, he was disqualified from serving as a company director. A confiscation order was subsequently made, mandating Taktouk to pay £4,549,925.29, with a significant portion designated as compensation to Chestone Industry Holding.

Grounds for Appeal

Taktouk's appeal focused on four grounds, two of which were granted leave by the Court of Appeal. The primary issues revolved around the calculation of the benefit figure and the available amount for confiscation. The appellant argued that the benefit figure should be reduced due to joint criminal property and that fresh evidence from his brother, Dr. Wassim Taktouk, should be considered.

Judgment and Rationale

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Edis, examined the procedural history and evidence presented. The judges refused leave on the grounds related to the benefit figure, citing no evidence of joint criminal property with M. Colliac. However, they granted leave concerning the available amount, acknowledging the potential relevance of fresh evidence from Dr. Wassim Taktouk.

Fresh Evidence and Procedural Fairness

Dr. Wassim Taktouk, acting as executor of their late father's estate, provided a statement indicating limited family wealth. The Court of Appeal considered this evidence potentially significant, especially given the lengthy default prison sentence attached to the unpaid confiscation order.

Outcome and Directions

The Court quashed the confiscation order and directed the Crown Court to proceed afresh regarding the available amount, emphasizing that the benefit figure should not be revisited. The fresh proceedings were ordered to be listed before His Honour Judge Milne KC, who had presided over the initial confiscation hearing.

Implications for Legal Practitioners

This case highlights crucial aspects of confiscation proceedings, particularly the importance of accurate benefit calculations and the consideration of fresh evidence. It underscores the necessity for thorough asset investigations and procedural fairness in such cases.