Which party should bear the cost of complying with POCA? Mickaela Fox & Nicholas Medcroft examine the consent regime
- Looks at the consent regime under Part 7, Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).
- Considers which party should bear the costs of compliance with POCA’s mandatory ‘freeze’.
- Explores Joshua Brien v Irwin Mitchell.
Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) is concerned with money laundering. As well as creating the principal money laundering offences it establishes the consent regime, whereby a party that makes an ‘authorised disclosure’ to, and obtains ‘appropriate consent’ from the National Crime Agency (NCA) is afforded a defence to money laundering.
Appropriate consent can be actual or deemed. Deemed consent arises in two ways: firstly, if no reply is received to an authorised disclosure within seven days; and secondly, where consent to an authorised disclosure is refused, then after a 31-day moratorium period, if the disclosing party has heard nothing, consent is deemed to be given. Recent amendments to POCA in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 provides that the moratorium period may be extended for up to an
