From BAILII comes R v Valentine [2006] EWCA Crim 2717, a Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision that was decided last Friday.
After the police seized a tablet press, a packaging and drying machine and (among other things) large quantities of Stanazol and Viagra tablets from his premises, Mr Valentine pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class C drugs as well as conspiracy to contravene sections 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and 8 of the Medicines Act 1968. But what should be done with him?
While the police said the factory could make up to 500,000 fake tablets per day, Valentine said his actual profit from the illegal business was a mere £81,000. Following his sentence (five and a half years' imprisonment), confiscation proceedings were initiated, to see how much could be clawed back from Valentine's criminal activities.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, considering that the trial judge had already substantially discounted the likely value of Valentine's assets when fixing the sum to be confiscated. Since Valentine offered no alternative evidence, the judge's perfectly reasonable conclusion would stand. The prison sentence in default of payment was fine too, seeing as the judge could have made it 10 years but didn't.
Asset Recovery Agency here
Valentine's Day here
Valentine's Day Massacre here
Valentine's Day cards here [IPKat advisory: only for people with a strong stomach for sentimental gush and an immunity to the totally banal]
BID FOR DREAM HOUSE GIVES GAME AWAY
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html