Crime and Policing Act 2026 - POCA Part 2: timetabling of confiscation proceedings
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces an important procedural reform to confiscation proceedings under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
For more than twenty years, confiscation proceedings have generally been managed through the court's power to postpone the determination of confiscation following sentence. Although courts routinely gave directions for the service of prosecution and defence statements, there was no statutory requirement for a structured timetable covering every stage of the confiscation process.
Schedule 21 changes that.
Rather than simply postponing confiscation proceedings, the Crown Court must now establish a formal timetable before the sentencing hearing concludes. That timetable governs the exchange of evidence, fixes the confiscation hearing and, where appropriate, provides for the new Early Resolution of Confiscation (EROC) process introduced elsewhere in the Act.
Although these amendments appear procedural, they are likely to influence how confiscation proceedings are prepared, managed and resolved.
What has changed?
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 21 repeals the previous postponement provisions contained in sections 14 and 15 of POCA and replaces them with a new section 15A.
The new provisions introduce two principal changes:
the court must establish a timetable for confiscation proceedings before sentencing concludes
the period during which the court may vary sentence is extended from 28 days to 56 days
The emphasis shifts from postponing proceedings towards actively case managing them.
A statutory timetable for confiscation proceedings
The most significant reform is the introduction of a mandatory timetable.
Before the sentencing hearing ends, the Crown Court must set out the timetable governing the confiscation proceedings.
That timetable may include:
the deadline for any prosecution section 16 statement
the deadline for any defence section 17 response
the timing of any section 18 disclosure
the date of the confiscation hearing
where appropriate, the timetable for an Early Resolution of Confiscation meeting and hearing
Importantly, the legislation also allows the court to revise the timetable where circumstances require. The intention is not to impose inflexible deadlines but to provide a structured framework to advance confiscation proceedings efficiently.
Moving away from indefinite postponements
Historically, confiscation proceedings were described as being "postponed" following sentence.
Although most Crown Courts already issued case management directions, the statutory framework focused on postponement rather than proactive management.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 reflects modern case management principles by requiring the court to plan the entire confiscation process from the outset.
This mirrors the wider approach already adopted throughout the Criminal Procedure Rules, where courts increasingly manage cases through fixed directions, disclosure timetables and staged hearings.
Integration with Early Resolution of Confiscation
The new timetable also supports one of the Act's most significant procedural innovations: the Early Resolution of Confiscation (EROC) process.
Where appropriate, the court may build an EROC meeting and any subsequent EROC hearing directly into the timetable established at sentence. This enables the parties to exchange the necessary POCA material before attempting to narrow or resolve the issues in dispute.
Rather than creating an entirely separate process, the legislation integrates early resolution into the wider management of confiscation proceedings.
More certainty for all parties
One of the stated aims of the reforms is to create greater clarity for everyone involved.
Under the previous system, practitioners could sometimes face uncertainty regarding:
when section 16 statements would be served
when section 17 responses would be required
whether additional disclosure would be ordered
when confiscation hearings would ultimately take place
The statutory timetable should provide greater certainty for:
prosecutors
defence solicitors
counsel
forensic accountants
financial investigators
the courts
defendants
This should improve preparation and reduce unnecessary delays.
Extension of the sentence variation period
The Act also amends the period during which the court may vary sentence.
Previously, section 15 allowed the court to vary sentence within 28 days in certain circumstances.
New section 15A extends that period to 56 days. According to the Government's guidance, this brings the provision into line with the existing "slip rule" under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020, reducing the risk of confusion and missed deadlines.
Although this change is unlikely to directly affect most confiscation cases, it removes an unnecessary inconsistency between the two statutory regimes.
Practical implications
For practitioners involved in POCA litigation, the reforms are likely to result in earlier preparation.
Prosecutors may need to ensure that financial investigations are sufficiently advanced to comply with the court's timetable.
Defence teams will need to obtain instructions, commission expert evidence and prepare section 17 statements within clearly defined deadlines.
For forensic accountants, the new framework reinforces the importance of being instructed promptly. Delays in obtaining banking material, disclosure or client instructions are likely to become more difficult to accommodate where the court has already fixed the timetable.
Although the court retains the ability to revise the timetable where appropriate, the expectation appears to be that confiscation proceedings will progress in a more structured and efficient manner than has often been the case under the previous postponement regime.
Final thoughts
On paper, these amendments appear relatively modest.
In practice, however, they may prove to be one of the more important procedural reforms introduced by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.
Many Crown Courts already managed confiscation proceedings in this way. The difference is that Parliament has now placed that approach on a statutory footing.
Whether the reforms ultimately reduce delay will depend less on the wording of section 15A and more on the availability of Financial Investigators, disclosure, expert evidence, and court time. Nevertheless, a clear statutory timetable should assist all parties in identifying issues earlier, narrowing disputes and progressing confiscation proceedings more efficiently.
For defence practitioners, early engagement with financial evidence is likely to become increasingly important if statutory deadlines are to be met.
