[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Serious Organised Crime Agency v Sajjad & Ors [2008] EWHC 2535 (Admin) (06 October 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/2535.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 2535 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		6th October 2008

1. MR JUSTICE BURNETT: This is a claim by the Director-General of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, who seeks civil recovery orders under section 266 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of property, both real and movable, concerning nine respondents.
2. I am concerned today with claims against some of those nine respondents, namely respondents one, two, three, six and seven. Respondents one, two and three are respectively Hussain Sajjad, his son Ameel and wife Farah. The sixth and seventh respondents are Vodaman Plc, now in receivership, and Curzon Group Holdings Ltd, also I believe in receivership. They were companies operated by the Sajjad family and their associates. The claim against the eighth and ninth respondents has been settled. The claims against the fourth and fifth respondents, which concern relatively substantial amounts of property, are due to be heard in this court for five days beginning next Monday.
3. The totality of the claims today concerns £37,139 held in three bank accounts. The first is an HSBC bank account in the name of the first and third respondents, with a credit of £4,570. The second is a NatWest account in the name of Vodaman Plc with a balance of £30,242. The third is a Bank of Scotland account in the name of Curzon Group Holdings Ltd with a credit of £2,327.
4. The accounts are the subject of a property freezing order, which was in fact made against all nine defendants by His Honour Judge Mole QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, on 27th June 2006. His order has subsequently been varied twice, first by Collins J and secondly by Mitting J. The variations are not material to the decision that I am invited to make.
5. The general background to this matter is that the Sajjad family and their associates operated a company called Skyline Telecom Plc. As its name indicates, it was concerned in the telecoms industry and in particular the importation and sale of large volumes of telecoms equipment. Put shortly, that company was used to operate an enormous fraud on the Customs and Excise in relation to VAT between about 1998 and 2001. The evidence before me, which I accept, suggests that the total fraud amounted to about £42 million, of which something of the order of £24 million represented the proceeds of that fraud, applied by the Sajjad family and their associates through various corporate vehicles.
6. Vodaman Plc, the sixth respondent, was a company which itself was involved in VAT fraud to the order of £367,000. Additionally, it made a fraudulent reclaim application for £169,000 from the Customs and Excise. For reasons which are to say the least obscure, despite that application being obviously without proper foundation, a sum of £30,000 was paid and it is in essence that money that sits in the Vodaman account.
7. Curzon Group Plc is the successor of Emirates Bluechip International Ltd. It ran the Curzon Plaza, which is an apartment hotel, using funds that flowed from the VAT fraud.
8. I have before me a number of witness statements provided by Mr Roddy Cook, who was an official with the Assets Recovery Agency when he made the statements. He is now a forensic investigator with the FSA. I heard him give short oral evidence to confirm the content of his statements, and he helpfully provided me with some confirmation and explanation of parts of his evidence. He exhibits the detailed investigatory reports produced by KPMG. They cover a good deal of territory which ranges well beyond the three accounts with which I am concerned. Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am entirely satisfied that the sums standing in the three accounts that I have identified are indeed the proceeds of fraud flowing from the VAT fraud, which is at the heart of this claim.
9. In those circumstances, the sums identified are recoverable property within the meanings of section 304 and 305 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. In those circumstances, as I understand the position under section 266(1) of the same Act, I must make a recovery order and vest the property in the trustee. The formalities for the appointment of a trustee and the acceptance by the trustee of that appointment have been followed. In all these circumstances, I make the three orders as asked by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
10. Have I --
11. MR BIRD: My Lord, you have referred to section 226, it is actually 266.
12. MR JUSTICE BURNETT: I am sorry, that is my fault. I wonder if that could be corrected on the transcript. If you give me a moment, Mr Bird, I will sign these. (Pause)
13. Thank you very much. Mr Bird, I think I am right in thinking that the results of today's hearing are not in any way admissible or binding on next week's hearing.
14. MR BIRD: Correct. That order was made by Wilkie J.
15. MR JUSTICE BURNETT: Thank you very much indeed.