Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] This is a summary application at the instance of the pursuers under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") in which they seek an order for forfeiture of a total sum �1,893, being the total amount of cash seized by a police constable at an address in Dundee on 2 April 2011 in the course of a search in terms of a warrant granted by the Sheriff. There are three defenders. Of the total seized, it is accepted that the amount seized from the second defender was �125 and from the third defender �128, the balance of �1,640 being seized from the first defender.
[4] The second and third defenders each have a plea-in-law (No. 1) in the following identical terms:
"The action for recovery against the Third Defender being incompetent, should be dismissed."
The plea is supported by the following identical averments in Answer 5 for each of the second and third defenders, which follow their explanations for the possession of the cash:
"...In any event, this action is incompetent relative to an amount for less than �1,000, such as that seized from the Third Defender in terms of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Cash in Summary Proceedings; minimum amount) Order 2006 and Section 303 of the Act of 2002."
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.