Morning:
10°c
The failure to obtain the millions owed by Vincent Stapleton and his fellow crime boss Raymond May raises fundamental questions about whether the Government's pledge to seize the assets of major criminals is working.
Ministers have boasted how “Mr Bigs” will be hit in their pockets by robust enforcement action to
deprive them of the proceeds of their illicit
activities. The reality is rather different.
A recent Home Office report warned that while the overall amount seized from criminals had risen, those with the biggest penalties were least likely to pay. Nor are such problems new.
The Asset Recovery Agency was scrapped last year after costing more to run than it recovered, while its replacement, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, has faced similar difficulties
in depriving “Mr Bigs” of their assets.
One reason for the lack of success, highlighted by the Stapleton and May cases, is the ability of major criminals to delay enforcement by using their wealth, and legal aid, to mount a series of appeals that can drag on for years.
Equally worrying, is the unwillingness — or inability — of prosecutors to activate the default prison sentences which are usually attached to confiscation orders to punish offenders who fail to pay.
In an approach which one QC has described as akin to “acting like social services”, the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, which
is handling the Stapleton and May cases, claims this weapon can only be used as a “last resort and that it cannot be deployed while appeals are under way”.
Other experts disagree and blame the prosecutors' lack of aggression for the inaction. That, in itself, is clearly a concern.
But so too is their explanation that the law prevents swifter enforcement, which, if true,
is a problem which ministers should surely address.
