Ancillary relief v confiscation proceedings: what takes priority, asks Sarah Wood
As Judge LJ observed in Customs & Excise Commissioners v A [2003] 2 WLR 210, all marriages are subject to the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). The marriages of criminals are not excluded. Consequently, the question of who should benefit from any assets acquired during the marriage as a result of criminality is one that has troubled the courts. Should the MCA 1973 take priority so as to make provision for the innocent spouse, or does the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) enable the state to intervene, to the extent that any confiscation order will then take precedence? At a time when the government is counting every penny, should it not be automatically entitled to an order for confiscation to ensure that the proceeds of crime are at least being shared by the “big society”, rather than just the immediate family of the criminal?
No automatic priority
The theme that has
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
