R v Arturas Jusas

On 6 August 2021 in the Crown Court at Chelmsford before HHJ Morgan, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 21 December 2021, before HHJ Turner KC, he was sentenced to 9 years and 9 months' imprisonment. On 5 September 2024, in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, HHJ Mills made a confiscation order in the sum of £676,567.86, the benefit figure being £3,617,410.17 and the recoverable amount being £676,567.86. The order was to be paid within 3 months or in default he was to serve 5 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

On 5 December 2024 the order was varied under section 11(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to extend the time to pay to 6 months. On 14 March 2025, before HHJ Morgan, the order was varied under section 23 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to reduce the amount payable under the confiscation order to £654,382.47.

The prosecutor now applies for leave to appeal against the ruling of HHJ Mills. In support of the proposed appeal the prosecutor seeks leave, pursuant to Article 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Appeals Under Part 2) Order 2003 (as amended), to introduce fresh evidence from Ms Victoria Stockley, a financial investigator accredited under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and stationed at the National Crime Agency.

The Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal derives from section 31(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On an appeal the Court of Appeal may confirm, quash or vary the confiscation order that is under appeal: see section 32(1) of the Act.

The application is not opposed and the evidence of Ms Stockley is agreed. We give leave to adduce the fresh evidence and we give leave to appeal.

In these circumstances, we can deal with matters shortly. The underlying facts of the respondent's offending are not material. Nor are most of the elements that went up to make up the benefit figure or the recoverable amount as originally found and adjusted thereafter. Two items are however of importance to this appeal. First, sterling cash was seized from an address known as Flat 202 Gladwin Tower on 3 December 2022 in the sum of £152,790. Second, €16,500 in cash was seized from the same flat on the same date which had a sterling value of approximately £14,200. That cash (the present value of which is £14,500) was found in a locked closet, which also included some mobile phones.

Inquiries were conducted by the NCA with Her Majesty's Land Registry at the time of the respondent's address in June 2022, which established that the leasehold title for Flat 202 Gladwin Tower was registered to Jin Li, Sheng Huang and Kia Huang.

After the respondent was arrested and charged the National Crime Agency made several attempts to contact the owners with no success. But on 29 June 2023, Ms Li provided a witness statement to the Metropolitan Police, stating that she owned Flat 202 Gladwin Tower. She lived there from October 2019 to January 2020, when she then rented it out. She left some items in a locked cupboard in the hallway with conditions in the lease that the tenants were not to access the cupboard. She left six mobile phones, a suitcase of cash including £14,500 plus in Euros and US dollars in unspecified amounts and a backpack inside the cupboard amongst some other personal items. When she returned in January 2022 she discovered that the locks on the cupboard had been forced and ultimately established that the police had searched it. As we have said, cash to the value of £14,500 was found in that locked closet which also included some mobile phones.

In due course Ms Li provided evidence of the legitimate source of £14,500 of the funds that were found in the flat, which was accepted as being well founded. The National Crime Agency therefore accepted that the £14,500 belonged to the third party and should be returned to them. When HHJ Mills came to make his order on 5 September 2024, the third party interest asserted by Ms Li, on her own behalf and on behalf of others, was explained in Ms Stockley's then evidence but was not taken into account when calculating the benefit or the available amount figures for the purposes of an agreed order that was put before HHJ Mills.

The prosecutor now appeals on the basis that both the benefit figure and the available amount should be reduced by £14,500 to reflect the third party's interests. Taking into account other adjustments that have been made, it is agreed, and we are satisfied, that the benefit figure should be amended from £3,617,410.17 to £3,602,910.17 and that the amount to pay should be amended from £652,843.96 to £638,343.96. We therefore allow the appeal and make a new confiscation order certifying that the benefit and amount to pay are in the sums we have just identified, namely £3,602,910.17 and £638,343.96 respectively.