Correspondence

005/2024: Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act – cryptoasset forfeiture provisions chapters 3C to 3F

Published 26 April 2024

Introduction

1. This circular is issued to ensure consistency in practice by law enforcement agencies in the operation of the new non-conviction based, civil powers for the forfeiture of cryptoassets. A separate circular 004/2024 is issued to cover the new cryptoasset confiscation powers. This circular does not constitute legal advice. It is not a statement of law and is not intended to provide a comprehensive description or interpretation of the powers.

Summary

2. Amendments to Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) are contained in section 180 of and Schedule 9 to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which inserts new Chapters 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F of Part 5 setting out the cryptoasset specific forfeiture powers. These powers are modelled on the existing forfeiture schemes in Chapters 3, 3A and 3B of Part 5, which enable the seizure, detention or freezing, and forfeiture of cash, listed assets and funds in relevant accounts, where all or part of the assets are recoverable property or are intended for use in unlawful conduct.

3. Specifically, the powers:

• In new Chapter 3C of Part 5 POCA, enable the seizure and detention of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items discovered when executing a search warrant. These powers will be used in circumstances where cryptoassets are “unhosted” and not in the custody of a third-party. Officers can take steps to recreate cryptoasset wallets and transfer assets into a law enforcement-controlled wallet.
• In Chapter 3D of Part 5 of POCA, enable the freezing of cryptoassets held in crypto wallets administered by cryptoasset exchanges and custodian wallet providers.
• In Chapter 3E of Part 5 of POCA, provide for the forfeiture of cryptoassets following seizure or the application of a freezing order.
• In Chapter 3F of Part 5 of POCA, provide for the conversion of detained or frozen cryptoassets to cash before an application for forfeiture is heard by the court. This is novel and intended to mitigate risks regarding the volatility of the values of detained or frozen cryptoassets. The conversion may be applied for by either the agency bringing the case or the cryptoasset holder.

4. Distinct from the existing forfeiture regimes, there is no requirement for the cryptoassets in question to exceed a minimum value. Chapter 3E provides for the destruction of cryptoassets if it is not reasonably practical to realise the cryptoassets, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the realisation of the cryptoassets would be contrary to the public interest, having regard in particular to how likely it is that the entry of the cryptoassets into general circulation would facilitate criminal conduct by any person.

5. There is no provision for administrative forfeiture of cryptoassets.

6. The new powers in Chapters 3C to 3F can be exercised by “enforcement officers”:

• Constables (and NCA officers if designated with the powers of a constable);
• His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officers (HMRC);
• Serious Fraud Office (SFO) officers; and
• Accredited Financial Investigators (AFIs)  – investigators who fall within a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under sections 453 and 453A of POCA.

7. The amendments to Part 5 of POCA have been mirrored in Schedule 1 to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, to suppress the risk of cryptoassets being used for terrorist purposes.

8. This circular is issued to those exercising the powers in England and Wales under Part 5 of POCA only.

Definitions

9. For the purpose of these provisions ‘enforcement officers’ are defined under section 303Z20 of POCA as –

• Constables
• His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) officers
• Serious Fraud Office (SFO) officers and
• Accredited Financial Investigators (AFIs) - investigators who fall within a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this Chapter by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under section 453 and 453A of POCA;

A “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically^{[footnote 1]}. This definition is broad enough to encompass a range of different technologies in use (e.g. NFTs, Stablecoins, privacy coins).

A “cryptoasset-related item” means an item of property that is, or that contains or gives access to information that is, likely to assist in the seizure of cryptoassets that are recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct^{[footnote 2]}.  That definition would cover a number of different types of property.

A “crypto wallet” means— (a) software, (b) hardware, (c) a physical item, or (d) any combination of the things listed, which is used to store the cryptographic private key that allows cryptoassets to be accessed^{[footnote 3]}.

In recognition that crypto technology is continuously evolving, the Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definitions of “cryptoasset” and “crypto wallet” in connection with Part 5 of POCA.

Chapter 3C: seizure of cryptoassets held in unhosted wallets (and cryptoasset-related items)

10. There are five stages to the seizure of cryptoassets held in an unhosted wallet:

• Searches.
• Seizure (and detention of cryptoasset related items).
• Obtaining information from those items.
• Using that information to “reconstruct” the cryptoasset wallet.
• Seizure (and detention of cryptoassets).

Searches

11. The powers to search for a “cryptoasset-related item” are only exercisable on the proviso that an enforcement officer has lawful authority to be on the premises and has reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an item of property there that is, or that contains or gives access to information that is, likely to assist in the seizure of cryptoassets under Part 5 of POCA. Provision is also made for the enforcement officer to search vehicles and persons.

12. SFO officers and AFIs cannot use these provisions to search for cryptoasset-related items in Scotland.

13. Search powers may only be used where prior judicial authority has been obtained or, if that is not practicable, with the approval of a senior officer as set out under section 303Z23. Where the search powers are not approved by a judicial authority prior to the search and either no cryptoasset-related items (and no items of other property within one of the Part 5 forfeiture regimes) are seized, or any seized items are not then detained under a court order within 48 hours, the officer exercising the power must prepare a written report and submit it to the Appointed Person^{[footnote 4]}.

Seizure and detention of cryptoasset-related items

14. The concept of a “cryptoasset-related item” is introduced as a new class of seizable property and effectively grants powers to retrieve physical items to assist in the seizure of property which has no physical presence. Examples of cryptoasset-related items could include:

• paper notebooks in which recovery seeds are written;
• electronic hardware wallets similar to memory sticks used to store a private key and/or recovery seeds;
• a piece of electronic hardware such as a mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer or desktop computer that has relevant information on it, or which has an application which gives the user control over a software cryptoasset wallet.

15. An enforcement officer may seize a cryptoasset-related item if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is or that contains or gives access to information that is likely to assist in the seizure of cryptoassets under Part 5 of POCA which are recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct.

16. Any cryptoasset-related item seized by an enforcement officer may only be detained for an initial period of 48 hours. Detention of property is only authorised for as long as an enforcement officer continues to have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

17. The detention of any cryptoasset-related item may be extended by a judicial authority for up to six months at a time. Provision is made to authorise the detention of a cryptoasset-related item up to a maximum of two years (from the date of the first order). This mirrors the process for the detention of cash, under existing Chapter 3 of Part 5 of POCA. However, in recognition that asset recovery cases involving cryptoassets are especially likely to have an international element – and thus take longer to investigate – new Chapter 3C of POCA enables the period for detention to be extended up to a maximum of three years. The additional time may be granted (in up to six-month intervals) where the court is satisfied that a request has been made for evidence to be obtained from overseas (often referred to as “mutual legal assistance”), in connection with the cryptoasset-related item, and that request is outstanding.

Obtaining information from cryptoasset-related items

18. Officers are provided with the power to require a person to provide information which is stored in electronic form. However, the power does not authorise an officer to require a person to provide information that is subject to legal professional privilege^{[footnote 5]}.

19. The stored electronic information in question must be accessible from the premises. Officers can make such a requirement for the purposes of either determining whether an item is a “cryptoasset-related item” or for enabling or facilitating the seizure of a cryptoasset. The person must provide the required information in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible (or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form). If a person fails to comply with a requirement, then they may have committed an obstruction offence. The relevant offence will depend on which type of officer has made the requirement. Those offences are set out in POCA and other enactments, where relevant.

20. Any information obtained from a cryptoasset-related item may be used to identify or gain access to unhosted cryptoassets, and by doing so enable or facilitate the seizure of cryptoassets (including their transfer to a cryptoasset wallet controlled by an enforcement officer).

Reconstructing cryptoasset wallets

21. Having seized a cryptoasset-related item and obtained relevant information, an enforcement officer would use the information obtained from the physical item to open up the wallet on a law enforcement controlled cryptoasset wallet. This is in recognition that cryptoassets are a digital concept and sometimes only accessible using an electronic device. This does not involve touching the cryptoasset owner’s device and it does not include subsequently moving the cryptoassets into a secure wallet, that would amount to the seizure of cryptoassets. The approach would be carried out before the seizure of any cryptoassets, but it might occur a period of time after the original search and seizure of the cryptoasset-related items.

Seizure and detention of cryptoassets

22. An enforcement officer may seize “cryptoassets” where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that those assets are proceeds of unlawful conduct or intended for use in such conduct. The act of seizing a cryptoasset includes transferring it into a law enforcement controlled “crypto wallet”.

23. Where an order is made for the detention of any cryptoasset-related item, a judicial authority may, at the same time, authorise the detention of any cryptoassets seized as a result of information obtained from the cryptoasset-related item. This means that the detention of the cryptoassets can be authorised in advance of their seizure.

24. Any cryptoasset seized by a relevant officer may only be detained for an initial period of 48 hours, except where detention has been authorised in advance. Detention of property is only authorised for as long as an enforcement officer continues to have reasonable grounds for suspicion.

25. The detention of any cryptoasset may be extended by a judicial authority for up to six months at a time. Provision is made to authorise the detention of a cryptoasset up to a maximum of two years (from date of the first order). Detention may be extended up to a maximum of three years if the court is satisfied that a request has been made for evidence to be obtained from overseas (often referred to as “mutual legal assistance”), in connection with the cryptoassets, and that request is outstanding.

Safekeeping of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items

26. An enforcement officer must safely store detained cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items throughout the period they are detained^{[footnote 6]}.

Release of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items

27. Provision is made for the release of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items from the person from whom they were seized where a judicial authority is satisfied, on application by the person from whom the property was seized, that they are not recoverable property or are not intended for use in unlawful conduct.

28. Where a cryptoasset-related item is not claimed within a year from the date of its release and reasonable steps have been taken to notify any interested parties, an enforcement officer may decide to: retain the property; dispose of; or destroy the property, with the approval of a senior officer. Where property is disposed of, any proceeds are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Chapter 3D: Recovery of cryptoassets: freezing orders

Application for crypto wallet freezing order

29. To complement the search and seizure powers, powers are exercisable by an enforcement officer to seek a “crypto wallet freezing order” if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a crypto wallet administered by a “UK-connected cryptoasset service provider” contains recoverable property, or property that is intended for use in unlawful conduct.

30. An enforcement officer may not apply for a crypto wallet freezing order unless authorised to do so by a senior officer. SFO officers and AFIs are restricted in the use of these powers in relation to Scotland. A crypto wallet freezing order can be made without notice, if notice of the application would prejudice the taking of any steps to later forfeit cryptoassets under Part 5 of POCA.

31. A “UK-connected cryptoasset service provider” includes entities which:

• Have a registered or head office in the United Kingdom and their day-to-day affairs are carried out by that office or another establishment in the United Kingdom.
• Have terms and conditions with the persons to whom they provide services which provide for a legal dispute to be litigated in the United Kingdom courts.
• Hold data in the United Kingdom relating to the persons to whom they provide services.

32. There is no minimum threshold for crypto wallet freezing orders. Where an application for an order to freeze a crypto wallet is combined with an application for an account freezing order, the minimum threshold does still apply (amount is specified in section 303Z8 of POCA—currently set at £1000).

Making of a crypto wallet freezing order

33. A judicial authority may make a crypto wallet freezing order if satisfied that the crypto wallet contains recoverable property, or property that is intended for use in unlawful conduct. A crypto wallet freezing order prohibits each person by or for whom the wallet is operated from making withdrawals or payments or using the wallet in any other way, unless permitted under the exclusions authorised by the court (outlined at paragraph 37 below). Any cryptoassets frozen in a wallet remain in the custody of the cryptoasset service provider while an order remains in place. A crypto wallet freezing order ceases to have effect at the end of the period specified in the order unless it ceases to have effect at an earlier or later time in accordance with Chapter 3D or Chapters 3E or 3F.

34. A relevant court may authorise the freezing of the crypto wallet for up to a maximum of two years from date of the freezing order. Recognising that cases involving cryptoassets are especially likely to have an international element, similar to orders to further detain cryptoassets, the freezing order may be extended for up to a maximum of three years if the court is satisfied that a request has been made for evidence to be obtained from overseas (often referred to as “mutual legal assistance”), in connection with the cryptoassets, and that request is outstanding.

35. A crypto wallet freezing order must make provision for persons affected by the freezing order (that will include persons by or for whom the wallet is administered, similar to an account holder at a bank) to be notified of the order.

Variation and setting aside of crypto wallet freezing order

36. A judicial authority has the power to vary, set aside, or recall a crypto wallet freezing order at any time, including upon application by any person affected by such an order. The power to apply for an order may not be exercised by an enforcement officer unless authorised to do so by a senior officer. Any party likely to be impacted by a decision to vary or set aside a crypto wallet freezing order must have an opportunity to consider the implications of such order and be able to make representations, if so desired.

Exclusions

37. A judicial authority may make exclusions from the restriction on activity on the wallet for the purpose of:

• meeting reasonable living expenses;
• allowing a person to carry on a business, trade, or occupation. For example, this would allow a court to make a freezing order that applies to a proportion of the cryptoassets in a wallet – those which are regarded as recoverable property - while allowing the business to continue to use the remainder of the cryptoassets.
• permitting a person to meet legal expenses^{[footnote 7]}.

Restrictions on proceedings and remedies

38. Provision is made for a judicial authority to stay proceedings, at any stage, once a crypto wallet freezing order is made. The court may also order that the proceedings can continue on any terms it thinks are appropriate.

Chapter 3E: Forfeiture of cryptoassets following detention or freezing order

Forfeiture order

39. A judicial authority may order the forfeiture of some or all of the cryptoassets detained in pursuance of an order under Chapter 3C, or frozen in a wallet under an order made under Chapter 3D, if satisfied that the cryptoassets are recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. Provision is made for the payment of reasonable legal expenses that a person has (or may reasonably incur in).

40. An order for the forfeiture of cryptoassets held in a wallet administered by a cryptoasset service provider requires the provider to transfer those assets into a crypto wallet nominated by an enforcement officer. Once the transfer is executed, the freezing order will cease to apply and the prohibition on making withdrawals or payments, or using the crypto wallet in any other way, will no longer apply.

Associated and joint property  

41. A judicial authority may not order the forfeiture of cryptoassets in relation to joint and associated property. In those circumstances, where no agreement can be reached regarding the interests of associated or joint property holders of the relevant cryptoassets, the case must be transferred to the High Court.

42. The term “associated property” specifies how property is jointly owned in England and Wales. It means property of any of the following descriptions that is not itself the forfeitable property—

(a) any interest in the forfeitable property;

(b) any other interest in the property in which the forfeitable property subsists.

43. A judicial authority may order that a person who holds associated property or who is an excepted joint owner may retain the property but must pay the law enforcement agency a sum equivalent to the value of the recoverable share. Agreement can be made amongst the parties as to the extent of the recoverable portion of the cryptoassets. Exclusions are also permitted for legal expenses.

44. A judicial authority can deal with a person who holds associated property or who is an excepted joint owner where there is no agreement made. If an order for forfeiture of part of the cryptoasset (including the associated property) is made, and the court considers it is “just and equitable” to do so, it may also order that the excepted joint owner’s interest will be extinguished, or that the excepted joint owner’s interest will be severed, and it may order that a payment be made to that individual.

Continuation of crypto wallet freezing order pending appeal

45. Where a judicial authority makes an order for the forfeiture of only some of the cryptoassets or decides not to make a forfeiture order at all, and the law enforcement agency appeals, it may also apply to the judicial authority which made that decision for an extension of the account freezing order pending the appeal.

Appeals against a forfeiture decision

46. The time-period for the lodging of an appeal against a forfeiture decision is 30 days from the day that the court makes the order. If the appeal is upheld, it may order the release of the whole or part of the funds. If a forfeiture order is successfully appealed, and the cryptoassets are released, any interest which accrued during the time that the assets were held by the enforcement officer must also be returned to the person from whom they were seized, or the person by or for whom the crypto wallet was administered immediately before the freezing order was made.

Realisation or destruction of forfeited cryptoassets etc

47. Provision is made for the realisation or destruction of forfeited cryptoassets. Subject to any appeal rights against the forfeiture being exhausted, an enforcement officer must take steps to realise the cryptoassets or make appropriate arrangements for their realisation. The cryptoassets may be destroyed either where it is not reasonably practicable for the enforcement officer to arrange for the realisation of the cryptoassets in question, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the realisation of the cryptoassets would be contrary to the public interest in cases where it is used by any person for criminal purposes. This would be, for example, where the financial gain for the sale of those cryptoassets would be outweighed by the loss to the public of allowing the continued circulation of funds to be used for further criminality.

Victims and other owners: detained cryptoassets

48. Provision is made for the release of detained or frozen cryptoassets to their true owner. Two cases are provided for:

(a) relates to a person who claims that some or all of the detained or frozen cryptoassets rightfully belong to them, and they were deprived of them through unlawful conduct. An example of this would be a person who claims that the cryptoassets were stolen from them. If the court is satisfied, it may order the applicant’s cryptoassets to be released to that individual;

(b) relates to the case of any other true owner who is not the person from whom the cryptoassets were seized or the crypto wallet customer. Here, if the court is satisfied, the cryptoassets may be released – but only if the person from whom they were seized, or the crypto wallet customer, does not object. That proviso is intended to prevent the court from becoming involved in a complicated ownership dispute between the person from whom the cryptoassets were seized, or the crypto wallet customer, and the rightful owner of those assets. Unlike case (a), the court will have to be satisfied that the property is not recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct before it can be released.

Compensation

49. Where no forfeiture is made, following seizure, or from the date upon a prohibition was imposed on the use of cryptoassets held in a crypto wallet, the person from whom the cryptoassets were seized, or the person by or for whom the crypto wallet was administered immediately before the freezing order was made, may apply to the court for compensation, where the circumstances are exceptional.

Powers for prosecutors to appear in proceedings

50. The Director of Public Prosecutions may appear in proceedings on behalf of a constable or an accredited financial investigator, if asked to do so and if it is considered appropriate for them to do so.

Chapter 3F: conversion of cryptoassets

Detained cryptoassets: conversion

51. Provision is made for the conversion of detained cryptoassets into fiat currency on application to a relevant court. The conversion should be into sterling currency. This provision is specific to the cryptoasset forfeiture scheme. This is intended to mitigate risks regarding volatility of the values of detained or frozen assets. The conversion may be applied for by an enforcement officer; or the person from whom the assets were seized. The court must have regard to whether the cryptoassets (as a whole) are likely to suffer a significant loss in value during the period before they are released or forfeited (including the period during which an appeal against an order for forfeiture may be made).

52. Anyone likely to be impacted by a decision to convert cryptoassets into money must have the opportunity to consider the implications of such an order and be able to make representations, if so desired, and the order must provide for affected people to be notified. Where the court authorises the conversion of cryptoassets, an enforcement officer is responsible for arranging for the proceeds to be paid into an interest-bearing account for safekeeping, until the conclusion of proceedings. If cryptoassets are converted into money after a forfeiture application is made, but not yet decided, then the application is treated as having been made, which means that the forfeiture application process does not have to re-start as a result of the conversion to money. There is no appeal against an order made for the conversion of cryptoassets.

Frozen crypto wallet: conversion

53. Provision is made for the conversion of cryptoassets subject to a crypto wallet freezing order into money, on application to the relevant court by an enforcement officer; or the person by or for whom the crypto wallet is administered. The conversion should be into sterling currency.

54. Before making an order under this section the court must give an opportunity to be heard to—

(a) the parties to the proceedings, and

(b) any other person who may be affected by its decision.

55. The obligation to convert the assets, or arrange for their conversion, rests with the cryptoasset service provider that administers the wallet in question. Upon conversion, the cryptoasset service provider must then transfer the proceeds into an interest-bearing account chosen by the enforcement officer. The money will remain in the interest-bearing account until the conclusion of proceedings. A cryptoasset service provider is permitted to deduct any costs it incurs in compliance with the conversion process.

Conversion: existing forfeiture proceedings

56. In cases where conversion takes place after forfeiture but before cryptoassets are realised or destroyed, the converted forfeited cryptoassets are to be applied as follows:

(a) first, they must be applied in making any payment of reasonable expenses incurred by an enforcement officer in connection with the safe storage of the cryptoassets during the period the cryptoassets were detained under Chapter 3C;

(b) second, they must be applied in making any payment of reasonable expenses incurred by an enforcement officer in connection with the conversion of those cryptoassets;

(c) third, they must be applied in making any payment of reasonable expenses incurred by an enforcement officer in connection with the detention of the converted cryptoassets under this Chapter;

(d) fourth, they must be paid—

• i. if forfeited by a magistrates’ court in England and Wales into the Consolidated Fund.

Cryptoassets: detention of proceeds of conversion

57. The proceeds of converted cryptoassets may be detained for up to a maximum of two years from date the cryptoassets were originally detained under Chapter 3C or frozen under Chapter 3D. The detention may be extended up to a maximum of three years if the court is satisfied that a request has been made for evidence to be obtained from overseas (often referred to as “mutual legal assistance”), in connection with the cryptoassets, and that request is outstanding.

Release of detained converted cryptoassets

58. Provision is made for the release of converted cryptoassets where a relevant court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the converted cryptoassets to be released—

(a) are recoverable property, or

(b) are intended by any person for use in unlawful conduct.

59. The following persons may, after notifying the magistrates’ court under whose order converted cryptoassets are being detained, release the whole or any part of the converted cryptoassets if satisfied that the detention is no longer justified: - in relation to England and Wales, an enforcement officer.

Forfeiture of converted cryptoassets

60. A judicial authority may order the forfeiture of some or all of the proceeds of converted cryptoassets, if satisfied that the funds are recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. The time-period for the lodging of an appeal against a forfeiture decision is 30 days from the day that the court makes the order.

Victims and other owners

61. Provision is made for the release of converted cryptoassets to their true owner. An individual may apply for the release in the course of or at any other time providing that the following condition is met:

(a) applicant was deprived of the relevant cryptoassets, or of property which they represent, by unlawful conduct,

(b) the relevant cryptoassets the applicant was deprived of were not, immediately before the applicant was deprived of them, recoverable property, and

(c) the relevant cryptoassets belonged to the applicant immediately before—

• i. the relevant cryptoassets were seized, or
• ii. the crypto wallet freezing order was made in relation to the crypto wallet in which the relevant cryptoassets were held.

62. The relevant court may also order the converted cryptoassets to be released where:

(a) the applicant is not the person from whom the relevant cryptoassets were seized,

(b) it appears to the relevant court that the relevant cryptoassets belonged to the applicant immediately before—

• i. the relevant cryptoassets were seized, or
• ii. the crypto wallet freezing order was made in relation to the crypto wallet in which the relevant cryptoassets were held,

(c) the relevant court is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to the converted cryptoassets, and

(d) no objection to the making of an order by the relevant court has been made by the person from whom the relevant cryptoassets were seized.

63. The release condition is met—

(a) if the conditions in Chapter 3F for the detention of the converted cryptoassets are no longer met, or

(b) in relation to converted cryptoassets which are subject to an application for forfeiture, if the court decides not to make an order under that section in relation to the converted cryptoassets.

Compensation

64. Provision is made for a relevant court to award compensation in respect of assets detained under Chapter 3F. Where no forfeiture is made, the person from whom the cryptoassets were seized, or the person by or for whom the crypto wallet was administered immediately before the freezing order was made, may apply to the court for compensation, where the circumstances are exceptional.

Powers for prosecutors to appear in proceedings

65. The Director of Public Prosecutions may appear in proceedings on behalf of a constable or an accredited financial investigator, if asked to do so and if it is considered appropriate for them to do so.

1. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.303Z20(1)(a). ↩

2. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.303Z21(2). ↩

3. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.303Z20(1)(b). ↩

4. The independent person is appointed by the Secretary of State, in relation to England and Wales, by the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland, or by the Department of Justice in relation to Northern Ireland. ↩

5. “Privileged information” is defined as: information which a person would be entitled to refuse to provide on the grounds of legal professional proceedings in the High Court or, in Scotland, legal privilege as defined by section 412 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. ↩

6. This is akin to section 303M(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which makes provision for listed assets: officers must arrange for any property to be “safely stored throughout the period during which any property is detained”. This approach would also enable law enforcement agencies to continue to utilise the capabilities they already have to detain assets securely. ↩

7. This replicates the courts’ powers set out in s.303Z5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. ↩