UK: Valuing the Proceeds of Crime in Mortgage Fraud

Last Updated: 8 March 2011
Article by Will Hays

Of every 10,000 applications for a mortgage, as many as twenty seven are fraudulent1. Such frauds are more likely to be discovered during a period of economic decline, such as now. And when they are, you can bet that the prosecution will seek a confiscation order. So, the problem of how to value benefit in a case of mortgage fraud is of obvious importance.

In order to explore the relevant principles, this article will suggest a number of ways to approach the problem intuitively, without reference to the legislation. Next, it will look at the relevant law and the correct approach as found in R v Waya [2010] EWCA Crim 4122. Finally, the article will suggest that R v Waya may cast doubt on the correctness of those cases concerned with the confiscation of wages earned from employment secured by a false representation (e.g. R v Carter and Others [2006] EWCA 416).

A Typical Mortgage Fraud

A typical mortgage fraud may be committed in the following way. The mortgage applicant ('the defendant') misrepresents his income on the application form. Acting on that misrepresentation the lender transfers mortgage monies of (say) £600,000 to the defendant's solicitor. The solicitor then arranges the purchase of a house costing £800,000. The purchase is financed using the tainted mortgage funds (in this case 75% of the purchase price) and an untainted deposit of £200,000 provided by the defendant (25% of the purchase price). Thereafter, the defendant keeps to his mortgage payments (which include capital payments using untainted funds). The value of the house increases. The fraud is discovered, and the defendant is convicted. At the time of the confiscation hearing, the value of the property has increased to £1.6 million (an increase of 100%). The defendant's equity in the property is now £1.2 million (reflecting the increase in the price of the house and capital payments made on the mortgage).

Valuing Benefit: Some Possibilities

Approaching the problem from first principles, given that the purpose of confiscation is to deprive criminals of their criminal benefit, what should be the value of the benefit? There are five possibilities:

  1. The mortgage funds: £600,000. The rationale for this is that the offence was fraudulently obtaining £600,000. That is the defendant's benefit. What he did with the funds thereafter is irrelevant.
  2. The value of the house at the time of the purchase: £800,000. Although the defendant only obtained the mortgage funds, the reality is that the mortgage funds enabled the defendant to buy the house: 'but for' the mortgage funds he could not have bought the house. His benefit should therefore be the value of the house.
  3. The value of the house at the time of the confiscation hearing: £1.6 million. The defendant obtained the house which then increased in value. It would be unjust to allow the defendant to profit from his investment. His benefit should include the increase in value of the house.
  4. The defendant's equity in the house at the time of the confiscation hearing: £1,200,000. The defendant obtained a house worth £1.6 million, but the outstanding mortgage should not count as the defendant's 'benefit' because these funds are owed to the lender.
  5. 75% of the value of the house at the time of the confiscation hearing: £1.2 million. The property obtained was the mortgage loan, which was then invested into an appreciating asset, namely the house. The benefit should be the value of the mortgage loan which is now represented by 75% of the value of the house (the remaining 25% represents the deposit which, being untainted, should not count as benefit).

The Statutory Provisions

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ('the 2002 act') a person who has committed a criminal offence benefits from his offending if he obtains property 'as a result of or in connection with' the commission of the offence (s.76(4)). The person's benefit is the market value of the property obtained (s.76(7) and s.79(2)).

The 2002 Act caters for the situation (present in a typical mortgage fraud) whereby a person invests all the property he has unlawfully obtained. In such a situation the court calculating the benefit must compare two valuations (s.80(2)). The first valuation is the market value of the property at the time it was obtained (adjusted for inflation). The second valuation is the market value of 'any property which directly or indirectly represents' the property obtained (s.80(3)); in other words the Court must look at the market value of any investment which 'represents' the property obtained. The defendant's benefit for the purposes of confiscation is the greater of these two valuations. This process operates so that if the value of the investment has increased, the benefit is the value of the investment at the time of the confiscation hearing. But if the value of the investment has decreased, the benefit is the value of the property when originally obtained (adjusted for inflation). This accords with common sense. A person who has invested stolen property and made a profit ought not to be allowed to reap the rewards of such an investment. Equally, a person who has obtained property ought not to escape confiscation merely because he made a bad investment.

Before turning to the correct approach to calculating benefit in mortgage frauds it is interesting to note another approach which has been rejected by the Court of Appeal, namely the 'but for' approach.

The 'But For' Approach

Benefit is the value of property obtained 'as a result of or in connection with the commission of the offence'. One approach to valuing benefit might be to equate 'as a result of' with 'but for'. Applying this approach suggests that (in our scenario) the defendant obtained the house, because 'but for' the mortgage funds, he could not have bought it. He therefore obtained the house 'as a result of or in connection with' the offence and his benefit is the value of the house. This approach has a superficial attraction but it suffers from three difficulties.

The first difficulty of the 'but for' approach is that broadening the scope of 'benefit' in this way ignores the narrow ambit of the original offence. In a mortgage fraud, the essence of the defendant's conduct is obtaining mortgage funds via dishonest means. The property obtained 'as a result of the offence' is limited to the mortgage funds. (The position would be different if a person obtained a house by deceiving the owner into transferring the title deeds.) As Lord Bingham in R v May [2008] AC 1028 said (at paragraph 28):

'If (say) a defendant applies £10,000 of tainted money as a down-payment on a £250,000 house, legitimately borrowing the remainder, it cannot plausibly be said that he has obtained the house as a result of or in connection with the commission of his offence.'

Secondly, applying the logic of 'but for' reasoning would suggest that the property obtained by the buyer was both the mortgage funds and the house: both were obtained 'as a result of' the offence. In the current example, this would mean that the defendant's benefit was not only the value of the mortgage funds (£600,000) but also the value of the house (£800,000), even though the mortgage funds were used to buy the house. Moreover, the 'but for' approach permits benefit to accrue indefinitely. For example, if the defendant subsequently legitimately remortgaged the house, each legitimately obtained mortgage should be added to the value of the criminal property, because 'but for' the original fraudulent mortgage and the purchase of the house, he would not have been in a position to remortgage. Such double counting would offend common sense. Toulson L.J. made the point clearly when he said in R v Pattison [2007] EWCA Crim 1536 (at paragraph 21):

'Every school child knows that you cannot have the penny and the sweet. If your mother gives you a penny and you buy a sweet with it, your benefit is a penny's worth and not two penny's worth.'

Thirdly, if the 'but for' approach is correct, the valuation provisions of the 2002 would have no apparent purpose. The 'but for' approach suggests that where criminal property has been invested, the investment is property obtained 'as a result of' the commission of the offence. The value of the benefit would simply be the value of the investment, and there would be no need for the detailed valuation provisions contained in section 80 of the 2002 Act.

The Correct Approach

The Court of Appeal in R v Waya provided guidance on the correct method to calculate the value of benefit in a mortgage fraud. The Court rejected the finding of the Crown Court (unchallenged by the defence) that the mortgage fraudster had obtained the house and that his benefit was the value of the equity in the house at the time of the confiscation hearing. The Court of Appeal held that the property obtained was the mortgage funds. The value of the benefit should be found by treating the mortgage funds as invested in the property and applying the section 80 valuation provisions.

Applying R v Waya to our example, the defendant obtained the mortgage funds. If the defendant had been caught immediately after the mortgage funds were transferred (and before a house was purchased) the value of his benefit would be the market value of the mortgage funds: £600,000 (adjusted for inflation). However, if the defendant has invested the funds in a house, the mortgage funds represented 75% of the purchase price, with the balance being met by the deposit. Section 80(3) applies, because (the mortgage funds having been invested in the house) the house 'directly or indirectly represents' the property obtained. Section 80(3) provides that the relevant value is the value of the investment, which has increased because the house has increased in value. It follows that the value of the fraudster's benefit is 75% of the value of the house (£1.6 million) which is £1.2 million. The effect of this approach is to allow the defendant to profit from that portion of the investment which represents the original (legitimate) deposit. But the defendant is not permitted to profit from criminal property which was successfully invested. This approach exhibits a degree of internal logic (whatever one thinks of the fairness of the 2002 Act) and, as noted by Blake J. in R v Waya, it also has the 'virtue of simplicity'.

Looking Ahead

As discussed above, the Court of Appeal has rejected the 'but for' approach to assessing criminal benefit in mortgage fraud. As a result there may now be a tension with other areas of confiscation, in particular cases where an individual obtains employment by deception and is then paid wages for his work.

In R v Carter and Others [2006] EWCA 416 the defendant Lyashkov was convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. He had falsely represented to a potential employer that he was entitled to work in this country. He had been given a job, in satisfaction of which he was paid wages. The prosecution sought a confiscation order and alleged that his wages counted as benefit because they were obtained 'as a result of or in connection with the offence'. The defence argument was that the wages did not count as 'benefit' for the purposes of confiscation. The commission of the offence had merely provided the defendant with an opportunity to earn wages; the wages had been earned not as a result of the offence, but as a result of the work that he had satisfactorily performed for his employer. The Crown Court found that 'but for' the misrepresentation, Lyashkov would not have obtained the wages and he therefore obtained the wages. The Court of Appeal upheld the confiscation order and found that because the deception was an 'operative cause' of obtaining the wages, Lyashkov had obtained the wages for the purposes of confiscation.

To the extent that the Court of Appeal in R v Carter adopted an approach closely resembling a 'but for' test, that approach has now been put in doubt by R v Waya. The Supreme Court will hear the case of R v Waya in 2011. Whether that Court will consider it necessary to comment on the correctness of R v Carter remains to be seen.


1. Experian (figures relate to the 3rd quarter of 2009)

2. This case will be heard in the Supreme Court in 2011.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.