‘Has a really good understanding of this area of law and a really good POCA brain’
Chambers and Partners (2022)
YEAR OF CALL 2004
Bar Vocational Course – Nottingham Law School, (2003 – 2004)
BA (Hons) Jurisprudence – Hertford College, University of Oxford, (2000 – 2003)
Appointed to the CPS Advocate Panel
Appointed to the CPS Proceeds of Crime Panel
Qualified to accept instructions by way of direct public access
Criminal Bar Association
Proceeds of Crime Lawyers’ Association
Fraud Lawyers’ Association
Overview of Practice
Michael Newbold is instructed on behalf of prosecution agencies, defendants and interested parties (both individuals and businesses) in cases involving asset forfeiture and the proceeds of crime. They include restraint and receivership proceedings, confiscation hearings, the enforcement of orders, account freezing and forfeiture proceedings, cash forfeiture proceedings, proceedings for the condemnation of goods and restoration appeals.
Publications and Lectures
Millington and Sutherland Williams on The Proceeds of Crime (6th Edition – OUP 2023) – Chapters 4 and 5
Author (with Nicholas Chapman) of:
Mutual Legal Assistance – Civil Recovery (LexisPSL Corporate Crime)
‘Has a really good understanding of this area of law and a really good POCA brain.’ Chambers and Partners (2022)
‘He is very reliable and good at what he does.’ Chambers and Partners (2022)
‘A steady, methodical, calm and cerebral individual‘ Chambers and Partners (2021)
‘A walking encyclopaedia on POCA‘ Chambers and Partners (2020)
Recent instructions have included:
- Pre- and post-charge restraint order applications;
- Management receivership applications;
- Confiscation hearings;
- Registration of overseas orders;
- Enforcement receivership applications;
- Contempt of court applications;
- Certificate of inadequacy and s.23 POCA variation applications;
- Certificate of increase and s.22 POCA variation applications;
- Enforcement Hearings (including those involving a potential breach of Article 6 ECHR on grounds of delay);
- Appeals against confiscation orders;
- Judicial review applications;
- Civil recovery proceedings.
In addition, Michael has experience of appearing in the Chancery Division of the High Court, in the Family Court and in the County Court in civil and family proceedings overlapping with ongoing restraint and confiscation applications.
He has also been instructed in cases where registration of overseas orders has been sought in this jurisdiction, and cases where certification of domestic restraint and confiscation orders has been sought to permit their enforcement in the EU.
Michael regularly acts in proceedings pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the detention and forfeiture of seized cash, both at first instance in the Magistrates’ Court and, on appeal, to the Crown Court. He is often instructed in cases involving large amounts of cash or those which have significant complexity.
He also has experience of account freezing and forfeiture orders, including applications for the freezing of multi-million pound account balances.
As well as representing parties in Court, Michael is experienced in advising businesses and individuals, who may be the subject of anticipated proceedings, on the approach they should take during any investigation, with particular reference to potential restraint and confiscation proceedings.
He is also instructed to act in cases where applications are made to register overseas restraint and confiscation orders in England and Wales for domestic enforcement, and in cases where applications are made to certify domestic orders for enforcement outside the jurisdiction.
He is also frequently instructed in proceedings relating to the seizure of goods by relevant authorities, including condemnation proceedings brought pursuant to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 before Magistrates’ Courts (together with appeals against such orders), along with appeals against decisions not to restore goods which have been seized in the First Tier Tribunal (Tax).
Regina v S  1 WLR 109;  1 Cr App R 13 – Led junior for the Crown in the leading case on discharge of restraint orders as a result of delay in criminal investigations. The Court allowed the Crown’s appeal against discharge of the restraint order by the Crown Court.
Regina v Moss  1 WLR 6033 – Led junior for the Crown. The Court refused an appeal against certification of a domestic confiscation order for enforcement in Spain, pursuant to the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No.36) Regulations 2014.
Ahmed v CPS  1 All ER 1003 – Appeal against an enforcement receivership order, considering whether a pension policy had to have be immediately available to a defendant to constitute ‘realisable property’ for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Led junior for the Crown.
Regina v Gohil  1 WLR 3697;  1 Cr App R 30 – Leading case on the circumstances in which an appeal against conviction can be re-opened. Led junior.
Regina v Bijou (Birmingham Crown Court, 2022) – Instructed for the applicant CPS in proceedings to vary a confiscation order under s.22 POCA. The order was granted following arguments as to the interpretation of the statute, with the variation resulting in recovery of an additional £1.4 million.
Regina v Baybasin  EWCA Crim 357 – Instructed for the Crown to respond to an appeal against the appointment of an enforcement receiver by the Crown Court, with issues arising as to the appropriate procedure to adopt before the lower court.
City of London Police v D LLP and X Limited (Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 2021) – Account forfeiture proceedings in relation to funds held in an overseas law firm’s UK accounts. Instructed as junior counsel by the DPP on behalf of the applicant. The proceedings resulted in recovery of €34 million, at the time the largest court-ordered account forfeiture orders. Subsequently commended by the City of London Police.
Metropolitan Police v P Limited (Westminster Magistrates’ Court, 2021) – Instructed on behalf of the liquidators of an overseas investment scheme in account freezing order proceedings. Case resulted in agreement that the funds subject to the freezing order should be released to the liquidators, with in excess of £3m recovered.
Regina v Carroll  EWCA Crim 1119 – Instructed for the Respondent in an appeal against a confiscation order made in the sum of £4.5 million after the Appellant had left the jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.
Re Khan  EWHC 2683 (Admin) – Successfully resisted an application pursuant to CPR 3.1(7) by the defendant to set aside an enforcement receivership order previously made by consent.
Re Austin  EWHC 2574 (Admin) – Instructed to respond to an application by a third party to vary a restraint order. The purpose of the intended variation (which was refused) was to fund legal representation in ongoing receivership proceedings. The Court considered the regime for exceptional funding available under LASPO.
Regina v Preko (Southwark Crown Court, 2019) – Confiscation proceedings arising from the defendant’s conviction for money laundering offences. Confiscation order made for £7.3 million. Led junior for the Crown.
Re Kone  EWHC 3763 (Admin) – Application for the appointment of an enforcement receiver to realise a matrimonial home. The application was made some years after the original confiscation order had been made in respect of ‘hidden’ assets and involved consideration of Articles 6 and 8 together with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR.
Re Price  EWHC 455 (Admin) – Instructed for the Respondent in Certificate of Inadequacy proceedings in which the defendant sought to re-litigate matters resolved against him in the Crown Court in the original confiscation proceedings when a £2.3 million order had been made.
Re A & A  EWHC 304 (Admin), (2016) CrimLR 577 – Junior in proceedings to appoint an enforcement receiver in respect of two £16 million confiscation orders. Consideration of the extent to which Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR required the courts to credit sums recovered from money launderers as if paid towards the defendants’ own confiscation orders.
R (Price) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook  EWHC 496 (Admin) – Resisted judicial review proceedings arising from the Crown Court’s decision to register a previously made confiscation order pursuant to the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No.36) Regulations 2014 for enforcement against a property in France.
Director of Border Revenue v Turek  UKUT 167 (TCC) – Successful appeal against a decision by the FTT to extend time for the making of a late appeal. The Upper Tribunal held that the FTT had erred in its application of the principles in Martland v HMRC.
Director of Border Revenue v Dockett  UKUT 141 (TCC) – Instructed for the Director in an appeal against a decision in restoration proceedings. The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the FTT had made impermissible findings in favour of the owner of the goods at first instance.
Projosujadi v Director of Border Revenue  UKUT 297 (TCC) – Instructed on behalf of the Respondent in an appeal against a tribunal decision where CITES requirements had not been complied with.