<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\07514058325\46blogName\75Chiswickite++-+formerly+The+Croydonian\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75BLUE\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://croydonian.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en_GB\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://croydonian.blogspot.com/\46vt\0752605630255414466250', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Keep ALL of your receipts, FOREVER

And keep photocopies in a bank deposit box and e-mail scans to a webmail account too.

Otherwise, the State might decide it is going to take away your property.

And why this alarmist approach? Because of this:

"ARA secures order to recover assets of acquitted Essex (1) drug dealer".

And further, "The Assets Recovery Agency has secured a civil recovery order in the High Court in London against Fabian Jackson of Moray Road, Hackney ((1)which as an E8 postcode has not been part of God's Own County since 1899, but never let the facts stand in the way of the Government defaming Essex, eh?) , to recover in the region of £628,000 worth of assets. In its case against Mr Jackson, aged 31, the Agency alleged that his assets were obtained through unlawful conduct, namely drug dealing, money laundering and mortgage fraud that had resulted in a significant portfolio of assets. Mr Jackson has previous convictions for possessing Class A and B drugs with intent to supply and has not been in receipt of any apparent legitimate income from any employment since leaving school at 16".

.....

"
Mr Jackson was acquitted following a criminal trial. The Met police referred the case to the Agency which obtained an Interim Receiver's Order in October 2003. The Agency then launched its claim for civil recovery in December 2004. However, Mr Jackson refuted (given what follows, not exactly the mot juste. C) the Agency's claims, asserting that his assets were gained through legitimate business ranging from trading on Internet auction site, EBay, to clothing and shoe sales and property letting. Following a lengthy hearing in the High Court, Mr Justice King rejected Mr Jackson's claims, concluding that Mr Jackson's legitimate business trading was "wholly lacking in credibility."

Presumably Mr Justice King was correct in finding Jackson's claims "wholly lacking in credibility", but the raw fact is that Jackson having been acquitted in a criminal court has then had the full panoply of the law pursue him on a second basis. The principle of double jeopardy exists as a defence in many jurisdiction and is a constitutional right in some, and while that is in connection with repeated criminal trials, the effect of the Met having two bites of the cherry amounts to the man being punished through forfeiture of goods having been acquitted in a criminal trial. It is a long time since I studied law, but certain principle of legal philosophy and the like have stuck with me, and to my mind the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 - under which Jackson was pursued - is a jurisprudential abomination.

Labels: ,

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

Blogger fabian said... 6:31 pm

As the mother of Mr. Jackson's children I feel the need to shed some light to the taxpayers on the said trial mentioned on this posting. What the assets recovery agency fails to mention is the fact that the first criminal trial cost the taxpayers in excess of 1 million pounds the conclusion a not guilty verdict, not content with this result the met then passed this over to the ARA this new trial in the high court at conclusion will most probably be again in excess of a million pounds. as of last year December just the receivers costs alone where in excess of four hundred thousand pounds, and the ara would have you believe that they are walking away with some 600.000 pounds this is not the case living expenses and solicitor fees for Mr. Jackson will have to be deducted off that figure. so in all they have thrown 3 times the amount they are trying to get at getting it. And the figure was always in excess off the true figures for example the property they value as £76.000 was actually purchased for £22.000. The Polices philosophy was and always has been, there was no limit to the expenditure as long as the end result was a win for them. This case started in November 2003 and is still not over in 2007. and had this failed ARA's intention was to pursue Mr Jackson again under tax evasion, that would have been third jeopardy for the record. So without a crime without evidence of what that crime was or could have been this is the result.  



Blogger Ian said... 8:34 pm

"the effect of the Met having two bites of the cherry"

I'd disagree with this assessment, in my book, double jeopardy only applies to the same crime.

Firstly, "the Met" is not involved in the second case, and it is not double jeopardy because the second case is not considered the same crime and was conducted under a separate trial with separate evidence.

Just because he was found not guilty does not impede on how he came to obtain an excessively lavish amount of property, this may or may not have been associated with the original crime, that is not the issue.

Similarly for "tax evasion", again a separate crime, separate body of investigation and a separate trial.  



Blogger fabian said... 8:15 pm

In actual fact there was not new or different evidence in the civil trial the evidence was all the case papers from the original criminal trial that had been passed on by the met in the original trial which was in fact for money laundering the crowns case was that they did not know the source of the money. the civil trial was hand in hand with the criminal trial and relied solely upon evidence gathered in the original trial no new evidence
was introduced in the civil case. and further to the point made about
a new crime to date no one has been
able to name a crime that has been committed just assumptions and probabilities. so if its right that
an assumption is enough to condemn someone why is it in a criminal court we rely upon, beyond a reasonable doubt?  



Blogger Randy Higham said... 5:39 pm

Must one be an acquitted, alleged drug dealer to play this game?  



Blogger Kris said... 10:06 pm

looks like his bullshit story didn't pass the civil balance of probabilities smell test.

It's not about the assets recovery agency recouping what THEY spend- it's about stopping dodgey geezers larging it when they can't prove legitimate income.

Selling shoes on ebay? My arse!  



Blogger Kris said... 10:15 pm

"The principle of double jeopardy exists as a defence in many jurisdiction and is a constitutional right in some, and while that is in connection with repeated criminal trials, the effect of the Met having two bites of the cherry amounts to the man"

You are conflating two principles. It's got nothing to do with double jepordy.

1st= the criminal trial- to secure a conviction the jury of 12 a-holes has to be "satisfied so as to be sure". If there is one scintilla of doubt on a piece of evidence, juries will acquit. Even if juries hear eye-witness evidence, backed up by an unbroken chain of cctv footage, if there is room for forensic doubt, juries will acquit. Don't believe me? Go to a Crown Court near you and weep.

Now, as for the proceeds of crime act, I think it's absolutely fair fucks to say if one can't show one's 1/2M income, that in the absence of a reasonable explanation, we are all obliged to conclude it's not exactly kosher.

I weep no tears for the amount of legal costs incurred in pursuing this twerp, the mother of this man's unfortunate kids, the woman who bore his chidren or the dodgey dealer himself.

They should all call the waaamublance and get a proper job.  



Blogger Croydonian said... 8:55 am

Much interesting input, for which thanks.

When I first read the press release I tried out the raw facts on sundry contacts to see how they would react, and the universal reaction was that this was not justice as they knew it.

In the lawsuit by the ARA, I am presuming that they would have to have shown something on the balance of probabilities (the usual civil standard), and yet it would appear to be the case here that evidence that Jackson acquired his fortune from dealing did not appear to be derived from anything more than contamination of banknotes.

Admittedly we are dealing with heroin rather than cocaine, but lab testing has shown contaminations levels in the upper 90s of higher denomination notes here, on the continent and elsewhere (Source. Consequently, contamination is not admissible as evidence in some jurisdictions. Further, "Bristol-based company Mass Spec Analytical tested over "1,500 £10 and £20 notes withdrawn from banks in nine separate rural and urban locations". The company also found traces of ecstasy, heroin and cannabis, but "at far lower levels because the substances break down more quickly".  



Blogger fabian said... 8:27 am

I suppose only your ansestors are entiled to large it with there proceeds of crime stolen all those many years ago!  



Blogger fabian said... 9:23 am

Thanks for the cheap insults, just to let you know nearly a year on mother of kids doing well children are happy with their father who stood against those who claim to be doing good in your tax paying name. When your heroes break even please let me know. Money is not needed to fund crime lack of funds is a cause of criminal conduct. All the proceeds of crime the legalized criminals are seeking to recoup should give rise to many more years of criminal conduct. The only ones to reap rewards from this blind recoup will be those weaklings you so proudly admire. I would prefer some alledged dim wit large it up then all the peodo's and many other sick offenders get protected by your heroes. Money does not harm people, people harm people. Again the socko's have been bypassed, I wonder why, I'll answer that myself, could be that the heroes that you idolize are the mother and fathers of those said up and coming weirdo's who will be well protected by those weirdo's already in power. I would rather some dim wit offers my children some drugs and they have the sense to turn them down, than for well protected sicko's that your alledged hard earned money helps to maintain to roam freely. Finally who are you to judge, are your ancestors free from criminal conduct!  



Blogger fabian said... 9:26 am

Thanks for the cheap insults, just to let you know nearly a year on mother of kids doing well children are happy with their father who stood against those who claim to be doing good in your tax paying name. When your heroes break even please let me know. Money is not needed to fund crime lack of funds is a cause of criminal conduct. All the proceeds of crime the legalized criminals are seeking to recoup should give rise to many more years of criminal conduct. The only ones to reap rewards from this blind recoup will be those weaklings you so proudly admire. I would prefer some alledged dim wit large it up then all the peodo's and many other sick offenders get protected by your heroes. Money does not harm people, people harm people. Again the socko's have been bypassed, I wonder why, I'll answer that myself, could be that the heroes that you idolize are the mother and fathers of those said up and coming weirdo's who will be well protected by those weirdo's already in power. I would rather some dim wit offers my children some drugs and they have the sense to turn them down, than for well protected sicko's that your alledged hard earned money helps to maintain to roam freely. Finally who are you to judge, are your ancestors free from criminal conduct!  



» Post a Comment