Stevens, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty in October 2020 at the Crown Court to multiple counts of fraud, theft, and obtaining money transfer by deception. Over an 11-year period while working as an Independent Financial Adviser, the Appellant conducted a Ponzi scheme, deceiving clients by falsely representing that their money would be lent at higher interest rates. Instead, funds were used to support the Appellant's lifestyle and business, with some payments to clients funded by monies fraudulently obtained from others.

In November 2020, the Appellant was sentenced to five years and nine months' imprisonment. Subsequent confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) established that the criminal benefit was £1,296,603.20, with an agreed available amount of £183,673.22. This amount was composed of four asset elements: a bank account balance, two pension policies (one with Old Mutual Wealth and one with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)), and "hidden assets". A confiscation order was made in February 2022 requiring payment within two months or imprisonment for 21 months in default.

A Compliance Order was made to enforce payment from the pension policies, and a compensation order was made for the same sum to be paid to victims. The monies recovered under the confiscation order were directed to satisfy the compensation order.

The present applications, filed in February 2025, seek an extension of time and leave to appeal against the confiscation order on the basis that the valuation of the CBA pension was incorrectly stated as having realisable capital value, when in fact it had none. This error was identified by the Crown during enforcement efforts and the Crown does not oppose the application. The appeal was referred to the full court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against the confiscation order made in February 2022.
2. Whether the value attributed to the CBA pension policy in the confiscation order was incorrect and should be reduced to nil.
3. Whether the confiscation and compensation orders should be amended to reflect the corrected valuation.
4. Whether interest should be recoverable on the overstated amount attributed to the CBA pension policy.
5. Whether the term of imprisonment in default of payment should be reduced accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The available amount in the confiscation order was based on a false assumption regarding the value of the CBA pension, which has no realisable capital value.
• The available amount should be reduced from £183,673.22 to £85,426.24 by excluding the overstated pension value.
• The Crown should not recover interest on the element of the confiscation amount that reflects the mistaken valuation.
• The term of imprisonment in default of payment should be reduced proportionally to reflect the reduced recoverable amount.
• The compensation order should be correspondingly reduced to reflect the corrected confiscation amount.

Crown's Position

• The Crown does not oppose the Appellant's application for extension of time and leave to appeal.
• The Crown identified the error in the pension valuation during enforcement and suggested that the Appellant should appeal.
• The Crown agrees that the compensation order should be reduced correspondingly.
• The Crown accepts that the interest liability on the overstated amount should be extinguished.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Hirani [2008] EWCA Crim 1463	Exceptional circumstances required to allow appeal against agreed facts.	Confirmed that appeals against agreed facts are possible only in exceptional cases such as unfairness; court found this case met that threshold.
R v Miller [2022] EWCA Crim 1589	Strong public interest in holding defendants to agreed facts and orders.	Reviewed the principle but accepted that the Appellant could resile due to a joint error based on misleading third-party information.
R v Chen [2010] EWCA Crim 2669	Definition and valuation of pension policies as "free property" with market value for confiscation purposes.	Applied statutory tests to confirm pension policy inclusion but clarified that valuation must reflect market value, which was nil in this case.
R v German Castillo [2011] EWCA Crim 3173	Principles for sentencing in default of payment under POCA.	Guided the court in reducing the default imprisonment term proportionate to the revised confiscation amount.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the agreed terms of the original confiscation order but emphasized that such agreement does not preclude an appeal in exceptional circumstances, particularly where there has been an unfairness or error. The court found that the confiscation order was based on a joint, but mistaken, representation by both prosecution and defence relying on a third party's inaccurate valuation of the CBA pension.

The pension was a defined benefit scheme providing a monthly payment with no capital or transfer value, contrary to the earlier assumption of a lump sum value of approximately £98,000. The court admitted new evidence from a financial investigator which demonstrated this reality.

Applying statutory definitions under POCA, the court confirmed that while pension policies may constitute "free property," their valuation must reflect actual market value at the time of the confiscation order. As the CBA pension had no market value, the valuation attributed to it was erroneous and must be corrected to nil.

The court also considered the implications for the compensation order, which must be reduced accordingly. Regarding interest, the court held that eliminating the underlying obligation to pay the overstated amount extinguishes any interest liability related to it.

Finally, the court applied sentencing principles from precedent to quash the original 21-month default imprisonment term and substitute a reduced sentence of 12 months, proportionate to the revised confiscation amount.

The court found it just to grant an extension of time given the delay was primarily due to representation issues and that the Crown was not prejudiced.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following orders:

• Extension of time for filing the appeal was granted, extending the deadline by 1,084 days.
• Leave to appeal against the confiscation order was granted.
• The original confiscation order was quashed and substituted with a revised order reducing the value attributed to the CBA pension policy to nil, resulting in a recoverable amount of £85,426.24.
• The compensation order was quashed and replaced with a corresponding reduced compensation sum of £85,426.24, with details to be agreed between the parties and the court.
• The default imprisonment sentence was reduced from 21 months to 12 months.

The direct effect of this decision is to relieve the Appellant from liability for the overstated pension value and associated interest, and to reduce the custodial sentence for default accordingly. No new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles was established.