National Crime Agency v Azam & Ors (No. 2)
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Family Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The NCA sought a Civil Recovery Order (CRO) for properties and accounts owned by Amir Azam and his family, alleging they were obtained from criminal activities. The court found most properties, including Thurza Court and Wheatash Road, to be recoverable except one in Spain. Despite Kalsoom's claims for financial relief and interest in these properties under matrimonial laws, the court issued a CRO for the recoverable properties, ruling that the statutory scheme under Part 5 of POCA prioritized the recovery of proceeds of crime over the matrimonial claims.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Andrews:
In January 2011, the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) made a claim under s.243(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA ”) for a Civil Recovery Order (“CRO”) in respect of various properties and accounts owned by the First Respondent, Amir Azam, (“Mr Azam”) or held in the names of various members of his family, including his then wife, the Second Respondent Kalsoom Sanam (formerly Kalsoom Amir) (“Kalsoom”) who has since divorced him. The NCA claimed that Mr Azam was a career criminal – chiefly a drug dealer and money launderer - and that the properties were all “recoverable property” derived from his criminal conduct.
On 31 July 2014, following the trial of the issue as to whether the claimed assets were “recoverable property”, I handed down a judgment [2014] EWHC 2722 (QB) in which I found that the NCA had proved its case in respect of all the assets claimed save one, a property in Spain. For ease of reference, in this judgment I shall refer to the parties and the properties by the same names as in my earlier judgment.
Since all the properties and accounts claimed by the NCA were the subject of a Property Freezing Order (“PFO”), at one stage in the proceedings Kalsoom made an application for an exclusion to enable her to seek advice from specialist counsel regarding any claim she might have in matrimonial proceedings against Mr Azam for financial relief. However that application, which the NCA opposed, was never heard by the court. Instead, a compromise was reached, leading to an order being made by consent by Singh J. on 14 May 2013. That order recited that:
The NCA confirmed that for the purpose of determining whether any of the claimed property was “recoverable property” it made no allegation against Kalsoom of participation in her husband’s unlawful conduct;
Kalsoom confirmed that for the purposes of determining whether any of the claimed property was “recoverable property” she did not advance any positive case in relation to any alleged conduct by Mr Azam and “accepts that she will be bound by any findings made in this respect against Mr Azam”.
Kalsoom and Mr Azam both agreed that to the extent that either of them drew on funds that were subject to the PFO, such funds should be discounted from their entitlement to any share of their matrimonial assets on ancillary relief.
Paragraph 2 of the order directed that the trial of the claim would be heard in two parts:
Part 1... to determine the issue of whether the