Fields & Ors v The Crown

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeals arise from a conspiracy to defraud that occurred between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2005 involving four appellants and three other men. Three appellants—referred to as Fields, Sanghani, and Sagoo—were convicted after a lengthy trial and sentenced to imprisonment and disqualification orders. The conspiracy involved fraudulent trading through a company called Mercury Distributions Limited, acquired by Sagoo in 1995, which engaged in "long firm" fraud by submitting false accounts and obtaining goods and services on credit without payment. The conspiracy ended with police intervention in June 2005.

Confiscation proceedings followed, with separate hearings for the appellants. Fields conceded a criminal lifestyle case and was ordered to pay a confiscation sum based on the joint benefit. Sanghani, Sagoo, and Rajput challenged the application of criminal lifestyle provisions, with the judge ultimately finding that those provisions did not apply to Sanghani, Sagoo, and Rajput. The judge found the three co-principal appellants jointly obtained the full benefit of the conspiracy proceeds and made confiscation orders for the full amounts, rejecting arguments for apportionment. Rajput was found less involved and was ordered to pay a nominal sum.

The confiscation proceedings were protracted, with delays and extensions granted. Sagoo applied for a stay on grounds of delay, which was refused. The appeals address significant points of law regarding the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("the 2002 Act") and the operation of confiscation orders in cases of joint benefit among co-principal conspirators.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, where co-principal conspirators have jointly obtained the benefit of the proceeds of a conspiracy, the benefit for each is to be valued as the full amount of the proceeds or apportioned in rateable shares.
2. Whether, assuming the benefit is assessed in full for each conspirator, the confiscation order amount should be apportioned between them to avoid disproportionate outcomes.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The total benefit should be apportioned among the co-principal conspirators in equal shares, reflecting their "beneficial interest" in the joint property.
• Such apportionment is required by the legislative scheme as interpreted in the recent Supreme Court decision in Waya.
• It is disproportionate to order each appellant to pay the full benefit amount, as this could lead to multiple recoveries and effectively act as a fine.
• Challenges to the factual findings on available assets, arguing that the judge erred in concluding that appellants had sufficient assets to satisfy the confiscation orders.
• Application for a stay of proceedings on the basis of delay in confiscation proceedings.

Respondent's Arguments

• The statutory scheme and settled authority require that where property is obtained jointly by co-principal conspirators each is deemed to have obtained the whole of it for the purposes of confiscation orders.
• Waya does not displace settled law on joint benefit and does not support apportionment of benefit.
• Apportionment of confiscation orders is not permitted at the stage of assessing benefit but may be considered only on proportionality grounds at the stage of recoverable amount.
• The judge correctly found on evidence that appellants had not discharged the burden of proof regarding available assets.
• The delay in proceedings did not justify a stay as there was no prejudice to the appellant and the judge acted within discretion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming settled authority that where co-principal conspirators jointly obtain the benefit of criminal conduct, each is deemed to have obtained the whole of the property for the purposes of confiscation under the 2002 Act. This principle, established in cases such as May and Green, was held not to have been displaced by the Supreme Court decision in Waya, which concerned different factual circumstances and did not address joint benefit.

The appellants' argument that the benefit should be apportioned into equal shares was rejected on statutory interpretation, policy grounds, and factual findings. The court emphasized that recognizing "beneficial interests" akin to trusts among co-conspirators is artificial and contrary to the statutory aim of depriving criminals of proceeds of crime.

Regarding the available amount, the court found no error in the judge's factual conclusions that the appellants had not discharged their burden of proof to show assets less than the benefit amount. The court noted that lack of truthful disclosure makes it difficult for defendants to discharge this burden and that prior bankruptcy or restraining orders do not prevent confiscation orders.

On the issue of apportionment of the recoverable amount to avoid disproportionate outcomes, the court recognized that Waya introduced proportionality as a consideration but held that in joint benefit cases, ordering each defendant to pay the full amount of the benefit is not disproportionate. The court reasoned that each defendant is being deprived only of what he obtained, not fined or penalized beyond that. Apportionment at the recoverable amount stage was rejected due to risks of undermining enforcement and potential for evasion.

The court also rejected the application for a stay on grounds of delay, finding no prejudice to the appellant and that the judge acted within discretion given the circumstances and procedural history.

Holding and Implications

The court held that:

• Where co-principal conspirators are found to have jointly obtained the benefit of a conspiracy, the benefit for each is to be valued as the full amount of the proceeds, with no apportionment at the stage of assessing benefit.
• The judge's factual findings on the available amount and benefit were upheld.
• Each of the appellants Fields, Sanghani, and Sagoo was properly liable to a confiscation order for the full amount of the joint benefit without apportionment or reduction on proportionality grounds.
• The appeal by Fields was allowed only to the extent of substituting a confiscation order reflecting withdrawal of a criminal lifestyle concession, reducing his order to £1,565,945 with a default period of seven years’ imprisonment; all other grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The decision confirms the established legal framework governing confiscation orders in joint benefit cases under the 2002 Act and emphasizes the limited scope for apportionment or reduction on proportionality grounds at the benefit assessment stage. It reaffirms that proportionality considerations may arise only at the stage of determining the recoverable amount, but even then, multiple recovery is not necessarily disproportionate if each defendant has obtained the full benefit. The ruling does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of Waya in the context of joint benefit confiscation orders.