Forfeiture of Assets – First decision by the Court confirms "speedy and proportionate" process

In our earlier briefing we set out the considerations for an institution in receipt of a notice under the Forfeiture of Assets (Civil Proceedings) (Jersey) Law 2018 ("the Law"). 

In a recent decision, the Royal Court considered a notice issued under the Law for the first time.  The Court confirmed that the process under the Law is intended to be speedy and proportionate and confirmed that an owner of an alleged tainted bank account cannot be directed to attend the hearing in person.

In this case the Attorney General had served a notice in relation to the respondent's bank account which held a balance of £33,804.52. The respondent (who lives in Cyprus) confirmed he would be contesting the notice, meaning the matter would have to be determined by the Court rather than be subject to automatic forfeiture.

The date fixed for the full hearing was 4 June 2019. The Attorney General applied to the Court for the hearing to be adjourned to a date to be fixed and for a direction that the respondent be convened to attend the Court for the determination of the matter and to be cross-examined on his affidavit evidence.

Counsel for the respondent strongly objected to the adjournment as it was likely the hearing would not take place until at least September. He further pointed out to the court that if the respondent  was directed to attend the contested hearing and had to travel from Cyprus, even if he was successful in persuading the Court that the money was not tainted his legal costs and travel costs together would absorb the monies within the bank account.

The Commissioner refused the adjournment noting that "the clear intention of the legislature was that a person finding his or her account subject to notification in this way is entitled to have the matter dealt with speedily and proportionately and whilst more complex cases involving greater sums may well justify a more lengthy procedure, that is not the case here."

The Court further refused to grant a direction requiring the respondent to attend the final hearing noting that there was no precedent in civil proceedings of doing this. He did however further comment that if the respondent chose not to attend this may affect the weight the Court gave to his affidavit. 

This case demonstrates that the Court intends to deals with notices under the Law in a speedy and proportionate manner. Recipients of notices under the Law should therefore seek advice at an early stage. The bank holding the account did not appear to participate in these proceedings, which is likely to be the appropriate course of action, as per our earlier briefing.