Report comment

Am I missing something here please? To make an order "The High Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the known sources of the respondent's lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient for the purposes of enabling the respondent to obtain the property." There appears to be no extension of the term "income" to encompass lawful acquisitions of capital. Is it therefore the case that if someone inherited property or gambled successfully, even many years before the Act became law, such property not being "income", as normally understood by the law, an order depriving the person of it can be properly made? If so, far from being desirable as a piece of legislation, it appears grotesque in the extreme, a potential victim being possibly only saved by the European Convention on Human Rights' provisions on peaceful enjoyment of property.