Alaeddin Kamar, director of Kingdom Corporate, was searched in January 2023 and found to have £350,000 in ‘bundles’ of cash and £50,000 in foreign currency
At the High Court, Kamar argued that HMRC’s retention of the cash was illegal.
The search took place under section 289 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
During an HMRC search of the premises Kamar attempted to hide a safe from officer Imogen Johnson’s attention but once found he claimed that there was no money in it and that the keys had been stolen years ago. He also claimed the safe had not been opened since 2006.
A locksmith was called in to open the safe due to Kamar’s uncooperativeness, but once it was opened he produced the key. ‘Large wads’ of cash were found inside which were seized on the evening of the search.
The cash could only be detained for a total of 48 hours after the first seizure, which took place at 17:38 on 16 January 2023. This time expired due to mix ups at the court but was re-seized on 23 January after a re-seize order had been approved by the district judge.
The district judge ruled in favour of HMRC seizing the money, saying: ‘I rule that HMRC’s re-seizure of the cash yesterday was lawful and their application for a cash detention order can be renewed under section 295 of POCA 2002.’ The cash was permitted to be seized for a further six months.
The case revolved around whether re-seizure of the funds was lawful. The claimant’s main argument was that the money had been seized under section 294 of POCA and that to re-seize it under the same act ‘circumvents the strict 48-hour limit’.
The time limit for the seizure to be extended ran over due to mix ups in the court but Tom Rainsbury, solicitor for HMRC, gave a number of examples ‘which will be familiar to anyone practising in magistrates’ courts.’
The reasons included closure of the court building due to a heating problem, the usher lost the courtroom key and the judge got stuck in the lift. These are just a few of the examples Rainsbury used.
‘If re-seizure was lawful in principle, as I consider that it was, it would be nonsensical to suppose that the £400,000 in bank notes had to be brought to KCL’s premises (with the obvious attendant security risk) for the ceremony to take place there,’ said Lord Justice Bean. ‘I would therefore reject each of the grounds advanced by the claimants and dismiss the claim for judicial review.’
The judicial claim by Kingdom Corporate and Alaeddin Kamar was rejected at the High Court.