Report comment

Correct me if I'm wrong but POCA definition of 'benefit' is quite wide and goes well beyond net profit. Its a silly example but if the valuation of the house with a large bouncy castle on it was £20,000 more than without, then they can confiscate the £20,000. It matters not whether the person has ever actually had the £20,000 or incurred any costs to get it.

That is of course the reductio ad absurdum. Take a more realistic example. In my neck of the woods there is a Local Act of Parliament, which provides for compulsory registration and licensing of hairdressers. So lets say the council find out that a hairdresser has been operating for 10 years without a licence.

She gets convicted in the mags and the a POCA application is made.

The criminal benefit is all the income she has earned for 10 years, not including any expenses or money disbursed.

The net loss to the council is nothing. Yet they would stand to gain a percentage of a perhaps £200,000 confiscation order. For an offence which Parliament has deemed the relevant fine to be £300. How can that be right?