The Court of Appeal has dismissed Harry Zeman’s appeal against an order transferring US$657,710.60 held in a receivership account to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The funds had been frozen under proceeds-of-crime legislation since 2011.
The appeal concerned the Bureau’s application for a disposal order after the freezing order had been in force for more than seven years. Routeback Media AB, a Swedish company of which Zeman is a director and shareholder, claimed ownership of the money. Routeback’s separate appeal had previously been struck out; Zeman was the sole appellant before the Court of Appeal.
The Bureau alleged the money arose from fraudulent credit-card transactions connected with Routeback’s proposed sale of email accounts. In 2011, the High Court made an order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 after concluding that the Bureau’s evidence established a prima facie case that the funds were proceeds of crime. Zeman disputed the allegations, maintaining that the transactions related to a legitimate business and that customers received the service.
During the later proceedings, Zeman relied on material he said was new, including records, correspondence and evidence about Routeback’s service and transaction processing. The Court of Appeal held that a person affected by a section 3(1) order may seek to challenge whether property is proceeds of crime in a later section 3(3) application or when opposing a section 4 disposal application. But the court said that where evidence conflicts, the court generally cannot choose between affidavit accounts without cross-examination.
The Court of Appeal found that material factual conflicts remained, including whether Routeback could provide the email service and whether it had done so. Zeman bore the burden of proof but did not secure the cross-examination needed to resolve those conflicts. The court therefore found no basis to prefer his evidence over the Bureau’s. It concluded he had not shown that the money was not proceeds of crime, that the 2011 order caused injustice, or that transferring the funds would create a serious risk of injustice.
The court also rejected Zeman’s arguments that the 1996 Act could not apply to a company and that the alleged conduct had to be shown to be an offence under Swedish law. It dismissed the appeal and indicated that the Bureau should receive its appeal costs, subject to Zeman’s right to request a short hearing within 14 days to argue for a different costs order.
This is a private unchecked draft based solely on the supplied judgment. The judgment is marked unapproved.