The Supreme Court has allowed Harry Zeman’s appeal and remitted applications under sections 3(3) and 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 to the High Court for further consideration.
The order is recorded in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Maurice Collins on 15 July 2025. Collins J agreed with the judgment of Charleton J and the proposed order. He added observations on how the statutory scheme should operate. The judgment excerpt does not set out the High Court’s further consideration or its eventual outcome.
The proceedings involve an application by the Criminal Assets Bureau concerning Routeback Media AB, trading as Local Mart, and Zeman. The appeal concerned challenges to property-freezing and disposal applications under the Act. Collins J described a section 3(1) freezing order as a final, free-standing remedy that can continue indefinitely, subject to statutory routes to discharge or vary it. A section 4 disposal order can deprive a respondent of rights in property and transfer it to the Minister for Finance or another specified person.
Collins J said section 3(3) allows a respondent or another person claiming ownership to seek discharge or variation by showing that the property is not proceeds of crime or that the order causes another injustice. In his view, the statutory scheme permits the proceeds-of-crime issue to be raised again using a new argument or evidence. He disagreed with proposed restrictions based on rules concerning new evidence on appeal and repeat litigation. He also considered that a respondent may contest whether property is proceeds of crime when defending a section 4 disposal application.
Those observations were Collins J’s views in a divided court. He agreed with Charleton J’s judgment and order, but the supplied judgment does not include Charleton J’s reasons or explain the precise issues that the High Court must reconsider. The Supreme Court’s order remits the applications; it does not itself discharge or vary a freezing order, make a disposal order, or determine whether the property at issue is proceeds of crime.
Collins J also addressed cross-examination. He said a respondent may cross-examine a Bureau witness who gives statutory belief evidence in a section 3(1) application. For other deponents, either side may seek the court’s permission under the ordinary rules. At the section 4 stage, belief evidence is inadmissible, and cross-examination concerns affidavits relied on in those proceedings.