Skip to main content

Confiscation Orders & POCA Reporting

Confiscation hearings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 produce some of the biggest numbers in court reporting — and some of the trickiest privacy questions, since the assets involved often touch people who were never charged with anything.

Last reviewed: Next review due:

Jurisdiction note: This guide covers the Part 2 (England and Wales) confiscation regime under POCA 2002. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own confiscation regimes under Parts 3 and 4 of the same Act. See Scotland media law guide and Northern Ireland media law guide.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 confiscation regime

Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 gives the Crown Court power to make a confiscation order following a conviction, requiring the defendant to pay an amount representing the financial benefit obtained from criminal conduct. The confiscation regime is deliberately separate from sentencing: a defendant can be sentenced to custody and also ordered to pay a confiscation order, and failure to pay carries a further custodial term in default.

Confiscation hearings are usually held some time after conviction and sentence, once financial investigators — often working with the police, the National Crime Agency, or the CPS — have prepared a statement of the defendant's assets and financial history. This means a confiscation hearing can generate a second, later news story on a case readers may have thought was already concluded.

Benefit figure vs available amount — getting the numbers right

Confiscation hearings routinely produce two very different numbers, and conflating them is one of the most common reporting errors:

The benefit figure
The court's assessment of the total financial advantage obtained from criminal conduct. Where the court applies a "criminal lifestyle" assumption, this figure can be assessed over a period well beyond the specific offence and can run into millions even where the available assets are modest.
The available amount
What the court finds the defendant can actually realise — cash, property, and other assets — to satisfy the order. The confiscation order is generally set at the lower of the benefit figure and the available amount.

Reporting a headline benefit figure of several million pounds without making clear that the actual confiscation order — the amount the defendant is ordered to pay — is a fraction of that can materially mislead readers. Always establish and report both figures, and explain the difference where the gap is large.

Restraint orders during investigation

Before a case even reaches trial, investigators can apply for a restraint order under s.41 POCA 2002, freezing a suspect's assets to prevent them being sold, transferred, or dissipated before any future confiscation order can be enforced.

“This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression.”
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12 — Freedom of expressionlegislation.gov.ukE+W+S+NI

A restraint order is a precautionary, investigative measure — it is not a finding of guilt, and it can be made at a very early stage, sometimes before anyone has been charged. Reporting on a restraint order should make clear it freezes assets pending an ongoing process, not that it establishes wrongdoing, and should be alert to the fact that the freeze often extends to assets nominally in the name of a spouse, partner, or business associate.

Article 8 privacy risk for family members

Confiscation proceedings frequently reach into jointly owned property — a family home, a partner's share of a business, or assets held in a relative's name — that belongs, in whole or part, to people who have never been charged with any offence. Reporting that identifies such a person, or details of their financial circumstances, engages their Article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life, and needs to be weighed against the strong public interest in reporting how proceeds of crime are recovered.

The Supreme Court lifted anonymity orders that had shielded the identities of individuals subject to asset-freezing orders under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006. Held that the presumption of open justice was strong and required specific justification to displace.
In re Guardian News and Media Ltd[2010] UKSC 1Supreme CourtCase brief →BAILII

In practice, this means: report the convicted defendant's assets and the confiscation order fully — that is squarely a matter of public record and public interest — but exercise care before naming or publishing financial detail about an uncharged family member beyond what was said in open court, and consider whether identifying them adds anything to the public interest in the story.

Practical sourcing for confiscation stories

  • The confiscation hearing itself: Attend or obtain a note of the hearing; the order made, the benefit figure, and the available amount are stated in open court.
  • CPS press notices: The CPS often issues a press release following a significant confiscation order, particularly for cases pursued jointly with the NCA or regional organised crime units.
  • The National Crime Agency: Where the NCA led the financial investigation, it may publish its own account of the case and the assets recovered.
  • Default sentence and enforcement: Track whether the order is paid — non-payment triggers a further default custodial term and is often a legitimate follow-up story in its own right.

Common mistakes to avoid

  • Reporting the benefit figure as though it were the amount the defendant must actually pay, without explaining the available amount.
  • Describing a restraint order made during an investigation as proof of guilt or as a "seizure" of criminal proceeds before any conviction.
  • Naming an uncharged spouse or family member in connection with frozen or confiscated assets without a clear public interest justification.
  • Failing to follow up on whether an order was ever paid, or was reduced or discharged on appeal.
  • Confusing a confiscation order (payment obligation) with civil forfeiture or cash seizure proceedings, which follow separate legal routes.

Related guides

Crown Court Reporting in Detail
Where confiscation hearings usually take place, following conviction and sentence.
Reporting Sentencing Remarks
Ancillary orders, including confiscation, are often referenced in sentencing remarks.
Privacy: Misuse of Private Information
The Article 8 balancing exercise that applies to family members caught up in a case.
Tax and Finance Investigations
Wider financial investigation sourcing, including NCA money laundering resources.

Primary sources

Frequently asked questions

What is a confiscation order?
A confiscation order is a court order made under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, following a criminal conviction, requiring a defendant to pay an amount representing the financial benefit they obtained from their criminal conduct. It is separate from and in addition to any sentence — a defendant can receive a custodial sentence and a confiscation order in the same case.
What is the difference between the "benefit figure" and the "available amount"?
The benefit figure is the court's assessment of the total financial advantage the defendant obtained from their criminal conduct, which can include a "criminal lifestyle" assumption extending well beyond the specific offence convicted of. The available amount is what the court finds the defendant can actually realise from their assets to pay. The confiscation order itself is usually set at the lower of the two figures, but the benefit figure — often the larger, more dramatic number — is what tends to be reported.
What is a restraint order and how does it differ from a confiscation order?
A restraint order under s.41 POCA 2002 freezes a person's assets during a criminal investigation or prosecution, before any conviction, to stop assets being dissipated before a possible future confiscation order can be enforced. It is a precautionary measure, not a finding of guilt, and can be made at a very early stage — sometimes before charges are laid.
Why does confiscation reporting carry privacy risk for family members?
Restraint and confiscation proceedings frequently affect jointly owned property, family homes, or assets nominally held by a spouse, partner, or other relative who is not themselves charged with any offence. Reporting that identifies such a family member, or details of their financial circumstances, can raise Article 8 ECHR privacy considerations even though the underlying prosecution is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Are confiscation hearings held in public?
Yes, confiscation hearings are ordinarily held in open court, following the same open justice principle as the rest of the criminal process, and the resulting order is a public matter. However, some of the financial evidence underlying the hearing, such as detailed banking or valuation material, may be dealt with via written submissions rather than aired in full in open court.

Related guides

Media LawPrivacy: Misuse of Private InformationRead →Media LawReporting Restrictions OverviewRead →Court ReportingCrown Court Reporting in DetailRead →Court ReportingReporting Sentencing RemarksRead →InvestigativeTax and Finance InvestigationsRead →BeatsCourt & Justice Reporting BeatRead →

Primary sources

Not legal advice. This guide is for educational purposes. Consult a qualified media lawyer before making publication decisions in legally sensitive situations.