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.
The cash recovered from the defender's motor vehicle on 6 December 2007 is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct in terms of section 298(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
[2] As Mr Cheyne observed during the course of his submissions, this case turns very much on its facts, and very little on the law, and it is therefore to the facts that I now turn.
[14] I have also found that in the course of the search of the defender's vehicle, and probably very shortly thereafter, the defender made various assertions that the money was part of �200,000 which he had obtained from the bank, and part of a sum of �400,000, but these assertions seem to have been made without any specific context. The defender denied making any such assertions. I did not accept his evidence on this point, but that having been said I have not thought it appropriate to draw any particular conclusions from the fact that these assertions were made.
[23] In all these circumstances I had no difficulty in finding that in fact no credible explanation for the defender's possession of any of the money found in his vehicle on 6 th December 2007 had been established in evidence.
[24] Parties were largely at one so far as the law was concerned. In terms of section 298 of the 2002 Act (read short) the sheriff may order forfeiture of cash seized if it:-
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.