UK: A Defining Moment: Supreme Court Rules On The Territorial Scope Of Powers Under POCA

Last Updated: 6 August 2012
Article by Omar Qureshi and Amy Smart


On 25 July 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Perry and others v Serious Organised Crime Agency.  The judgment provides valuable guidance on the extra-territorial effect of the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA") and the UK courts' powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"). 

The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order (or a freezing order in support of it) was limited to property located in the UK and that SOCA was not permitted to serve notices under POCA disclosure orders on persons outside the jurisdiction.  The Court also made obiter comments that suggest SOCA will be required more specifically and narrowly to draft applications in future when describing the property to be frozen or disclosed.  This may serve to require the authorities to prepare more thoroughly before seeking these onerous forms of relief and sanction.

While the judgment does not go so far as to define the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the primary money laundering offences under POCA, it gives a strong indication of the approach that the courts will take in interpreting the apparently wide ambit of the legislation in the future.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article


On 25 July 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Perry and others v Serious Organised Crime Agency.  The judgment provides valuable guidance on the extra-territorial effect of the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA") and the UK courts' powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"). 

The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction to make a civil recovery order (or a freezing order in support of it) was limited to property located in the UK and that SOCA was not permitted to serve notices under POCA disclosure orders on persons outside the jurisdiction.  The Court also made obiter comments that suggest SOCA will be required more specifically and narrowly to draft applications in future when describing the property to be frozen or disclosed.  This may serve to require the authorities to prepare more thoroughly before seeking these onerous forms of relief and sanction.

While the judgment does not go so far as to define the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the primary money laundering offences under POCA, it gives a strong indication of the approach that the courts will take in interpreting the apparently wide ambit of the legislation in the future.


Mr Perry was an Israeli national, who, in October 2007, was convicted of fraud offences in Israel.  The conviction related to a fraudulent pension scheme that he had operated in Israel.  Mr Perry was given a substantial custodial sentence (10 years) and fined approximately £3m by the Israeli courts.

In May 2008, Hoare's Bank in London notified SOCA that Mr Perry and his two daughters held accounts with the bank.  SOCA subsequently discovered funds in another account in London.  Around £14m was held in these accounts.

In August 2008, SOCA obtained a disclosure order from the High Court, pursuant to which they served disclosure notices requesting information from Mr Perry's wife and daughters as to his assets.  The disclosure notices contained a penal notice explaining that failure to comply with the request would lead to criminal sanctions.  Mrs Perry and her daughters lived in Israel.  The disclosure notices were served on Mr Perry's UK residence in Mayfair.  (Disclosure orders made under POCA require the recipients to disclose information and/or provide documents in relation to matters under investigation by SOCA.)

In October 2008, SOCA obtained a worldwide property freezing order (in support of an anticipated application for civil recovery) over eight respondents, including Mrs Perry, her daughters and entities thought to hold assets on Mr Perry's behalf.  The order also required disclosure of all the defendants' worldwide assets.

Earlier appeals

Mr Perry and the other appellants challenged both the disclosure orders (the "DO appeal") and the freezing order (the "FO appeal").

The FO appeal sought to limit the freezing order and disclosure obligations within it to assets located within the UK.  The DO appeal challenged SOCA's jurisdiction to serve disclosure notices on persons outside the UK.    

Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal were rejected on the basis that the wording in the relevant sections of POCA displaced the presumption that legislation would not have extra-territorial effect unless otherwise stated.  Of particular note were comments made by Ward LJ in the Court of Appeal that "there is no reason why the whole Act should not have extra-territorial effect and that Parliament must have so intended." (SOCA v Perry & ors [2010] EWCA Civ 907, para 79)

During the appeals, SOCA had argued that POCA had extremely wide territorial application: "Parliament has decided that a Chinese thief, living in China, who has stolen property in China from a Chinese citizen may be the subject of civil recovery action [in the UK]."

However, the Supreme Court departed from the decisions of the lower courts, permitting the appeals (by a seven to two majority in relation to the FO appeal, but unanimously for the DO appeal) and more narrowly defining the limits of the extra-territorial effect of Parts 2 to 5 of POCA.

The judgment

Nine Supreme Court judges decided the appeal, with the leading judgment given by Lord Phillips.  The fact that the appeal was heard by the maximum nine judges reflects the significance and importance of the issues in this case, as usually Supreme Court appeals are heard by five or seven judges.  Due to the ambiguous nature of the territorial scope of the relevant parts of POCA, the central discussion concerned the interpretation of the individual provisions relating to confiscation and civil recovery powers. 

Parts 2, 3 and 4 of POCA are primarily concerned with confiscation orders against a person convicted in criminal proceedings, for the payment of a sum equivalent to the value of property or pecuniary advantage obtained from his criminal conduct.

Part 5 of POCA empowers the court to make a civil recovery order in respect of property, which is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct.  A civil recovery order is an order made in the civil courts against particular property, rather than a particular person; the court approves an order for the recovery of property obtained unlawfully, which is not necessarily restricted to the defendant's property but can relate to property held by others who had notice of its criminal origins.  A prior successful criminal prosecution is not required as a precondition to obtaining a civil recovery order.  "Property" is defined within Part 5 (and elsewhere in POCA) as "all property wherever situated" (s. 316(4) of POCA), but the legislation does not specify whether a civil recovery order can cover property situated outside the UK. 

It is a presumption under principles of international law that legislation will not have extra-territorial effect unless it clearly states otherwise.  Lord Phillips acknowledged that states have historically departed from this principle in relation to confiscation of proceeds of crime by signing up to international conventions.  He considered that POCA must be interpreted in light of the Strasbourg Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (the "Strasbourg Convention").  

Lord Phillips noted that Parts 2, 3 and 4 of POCA impose a personal obligation in respect of the defendant's property worldwide and provides a process whereby a UK prosecuting authority can request other states to take measures in respect of criminal property located in their jurisdiction. This is consistent with the obligations placed on the UK under the Strasbourg Convention.  Lord Phillips made the distinction that Part 5 focuses on recovering criminal property generally rather than punishing a particular defendant and unlike Parts 2, 3 and 4, it does not contain provisions relating to foreign enforcement. 

Accordingly, Lord Phillips concluded that this meant Parliament envisaged Part 5 would only apply to property within the jurisdiction; the UK courts did not have jurisdiction to order recovery of property outside the UK in civil recovery proceedings.  He noted that where SOCA becomes aware of criminal property located in another jurisdiction, the "natural course in those circumstances will be to pass on such information as it has about the property to the appropriate authorities in the country where the property is situated."

In light of this, he ruled that the freezing order (which was made in support of anticipated civil recovery proceedings) should be amended to cover only property based in England and Wales, not worldwide.  He also noted that he considered other elements of the freezing order to be improper.  Section 245A of POCA requires the freezing order to specify or describe the property to which it applies.  The freezing order subject to appeal sought to freeze generally described categories of assets; Lord Phillips questioned whether this met the requirements of POCA, but as no appeal had been brought concerning the description of the property no ruling on this point was required.  In relation to the disclosure obligations within the freezing order, he questioned whether the court had jurisdiction to impose such obligations in this way, given that Part 8 of POCA specifically dealt with disclosure.  Again, this was not specifically ruled upon, but Lord Phillips said if the Court was asked to approve an amended freezing order, he would need to be convinced that there was jurisdiction to require disclosure in this form.

In respect of the DO appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that it was generally contrary to international law for one state to purport to criminalise conduct occurring in another state, when the defendant is not a citizen of the state imposing the criminal penalty.  It was therefore implicit that SOCA could not impose a positive obligation on the Perry family (with the threat of a criminal sanction) to provide information when they were outside the UK and so the disclosure orders were not effective.  Lord Phillips made similar comments about the content of the disclosure orders as he made in relation to the freezing orders, questioning whether it is possible to seek disclosure about property that had not already been identified as existing.

Lord Judge and Lord Clarke dissented in relation to the FO appeal (but concurred with Lord Phillips' judgment in relation to the DO appeal).  In their joint dissent, they noted that POCA was poorly drafted, but said that its intention was to deprive criminals of proceeds of crime, whether in the UK or overseas.  Therefore, they thought that recovery orders could include foreign property, although their enforcement would be subject to local law.

One particular anomaly within POCA was identified.  Section 286(2) purports to create a different position in relation to civil recovery powers available to the courts in Scotland from that in the rest of the UK.  Lord Phillips noted that there was no satisfactory explanation for this and it remained an enigma.  In any event, the judges concluded that it did not effect the overall conclusions reached within the judgment.


The Supreme Court has given much needed guidance on the very wide language of POCA and the extent to which it allows or requires the UK courts to impose sanctions in respect of criminal property located outside the UK.  The judgment may also limit the availability of those powers to circumstances where the property to be confiscated or recovered is known to exist and can be described in reasonably specific detail – general descriptions of types of property by category may not be sufficient and so we may see far more limited civil recovery and disclosure orders in the future.

The judgment did not, however, go so far as to determine the extra-territorial effect of the primary money laundering offences themselves.  That said, it has identified the courts' approach to interpreting the often ambiguous provisions of POCA and may be indicative of the way in which the courts will interpret other powers if and when tested. 

The anomaly identified within section 286(2) of POCA creates a peculiar situation that could potentially enable civil recovery orders made in Scotland to cover property outside the UK in limited circumstances, although this was not finally decided and may result in Parliamentary correction.

Perry & Ors v SOCA [2012] UKSC 35

A full copy of the judgment is available here.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 30/07/2012.

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.