Benefit Obtained Jointly Under POCA 2002

Benefit Obtained Jointly in POCA Confiscation Proceedings

One issue that repeatedly arises in confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is how the court treats benefit obtained jointly.

It often comes to light in practical ways. For example, a joint bank account appearing in both a husband’s and wife’s section 16 statements, with each attributed the full balance as benefit. The immediate concern is obvious: has the benefit been counted twice?

Understanding how benefit obtained jointly operates is essential in POCA cases, particularly where spouses or co-defendants are involved.

What Does “Benefit Obtained Jointly” Mean Under POCA?

Under POCA 2002, the court must determine the value of property obtained by a defendant as a result of or in connection with criminal conduct.

Where property is obtained jointly, the established principle is that each defendant may be treated as having obtained the whole of that property for the purpose of calculating individual benefit.

That does not mean the prosecution can recover the same money twice. It means that, when assessing each defendant separately, the court may attribute the full jointly obtained sum to each of them.

The distinction between attribution and recovery is critical.

Joint Bank Accounts and Section 16 Statements

Joint bank accounts are one of the most common triggers for disputes about benefit obtained jointly in POCA confiscation proceedings.

The prosecution's position is often straightforward: the account received criminal proceeds, both parties were account holders, and therefore both obtained the funds jointly.

But legal access is not the same as obtaining.

In practice, the court must consider questions such as:

• Who introduced the funds into the account?
• Who operated the account in reality?
• Who controlled withdrawals?
• Did both parties derive a genuine financial benefit?
• Was one party merely a nominal or administrative signatory?

The mere presence of a name on a bank mandate does not automatically establish joint obtaining.

The Risk of Double Counting Benefit

Although the law permits joint attribution of benefit, there is a practical risk of inflation if the analysis is superficial.

Take a simple example. A joint account receives £300,000, alleged to represent criminal proceeds. The husband’s section 16 statement attributes £300,000. The wife’s section 16 statement also attributes £300,000.

On paper, that appears to create £600,000 of benefit from £300,000 of receipts.

Legally, this can be permissible if the property was genuinely obtained jointly. However, it must be justified by evidence. Confiscation figures should reflect what was actually obtained, not what appears on duplicated schedules.

The court cannot ultimately recover more than the total criminal gain, but inflated attribution can significantly affect negotiations, available amount arguments and overall exposure.

Spouses and Joint Benefit in POCA Cases

Benefit obtained jointly most frequently arises in cases involving spouses or partners charged together.

In many cases, one spouse may have operated the business or handled the cash, while the other is named on the bank account or involved peripherally. Yet both may receive identical benefit schedules in section 16 statements.

Confiscation is fact-sensitive. The court must consider whether each defendant truly obtained the property, not simply whether they were connected to it.

This is where careful forensic analysis of bank statements, fund flows and patterns of control becomes essential.

Why “Obtaining” Is the Central Question

The statutory focus is on property obtained by the defendant.

Obtaining involves more than passive receipt or technical access. It requires a real connection between the defendant and the acquisition of property as a result of criminal conduct.

In joint bank account cases, the critical issue is often whether the second account holder actually obtained the funds, or whether attribution is being inferred solely from joint legal ownership.

That distinction can materially affect the scale of the alleged benefit.

Final Thoughts

Benefit obtained jointly is not a technical footnote in confiscation proceedings. It can dramatically alter the scale of alleged benefit and the exposure faced by each defendant.

Where joint accounts, spouses or co-defendants are involved, it is essential to move beyond surface assumptions and examine who actually obtained the proceeds.

In many cases, detailed financial reconstruction reveals that the position is more nuanced than the section 16 statement first suggests.

If you are dealing with a POCA case involving joint bank accounts or alleged jointly obtained benefit, early forensic analysis can make a measurable difference to how the benefit figure is framed and challenged.