Assets frozen under a restraint order can still attract inflation uplift in confiscation proceedings, even where they have earned no interest or failed to increase in value. That was the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in R v Ibori [2026] EWCA Crim 1396, a judgment also dealing with Arif Patel’s confiscation proceedings and property claims by his former wife.
The decision draws an important distinction between the value of criminal benefit and the performance of the assets available to meet a confiscation order.
What is inflation uplift in POCA proceedings?
Confiscation calculations can include an adjustment for changes in the value of money between the date criminal benefit was obtained and the date it is valued for the proceedings.
This is often described as inflation uplift, indexation or a change in the value of money adjustment.
Its purpose is to express historic criminal benefit in present-day monetary terms. It does not depend on the defendant having earned an equivalent amount of interest or investment income.
For example, money obtained many years ago may produce a higher benefit figure after indexation, even if the original sum remains unchanged in a bank account.
What did Ibori and Patel argue?
The court considered two unrelated cases together because they raised the same central question: is inflation uplift disproportionate where a restraint order has prevented the defendant from using the assets to generate a return?
James Ibori’s confiscation order was approximately £101.5 million. His appeal concerned uplift associated with particular bank accounts.
Arif Patel’s benefit was approximately £52.8 million before indexation, increasing to approximately £90.5 million after uplift. His arguments included the effect of a lengthy restraint and management receivership, property performance and receivership costs.
Both defendants argued, in substance, that they were being required to pay an increase in value they had not received and had been prevented from generating.
Why did the Court of Appeal reject the arguments?
The court explained that confiscation operates by reference to the value of the benefit obtained from crime.
A confiscation order requires payment of a money sum. It is not confined to taking the original proceeds or whatever those proceeds are currently worth.
On that basis, freezing the assets does not reverse the benefit already obtained. Nor does it make inflation uplift disproportionate simply because those assets have failed to keep pace with inflation.
The court also emphasised that the lengthy delays in these particular cases arose from the defendants’ conduct.
Arguments based on proportionality remain available in appropriate circumstances. However, the court distinguished restraint from situations involving double recovery, such as where benefit has been restored to the victim.
Does this mean every inflation calculation is correct?
No. The decision rejects a particular reason for disapplying uplift. It does not establish that every prosecution calculation is accurate.
A financial review should still examine:
The underlying receipts or property included as benefit.
The dates used to calculate the uplift.
The indices, arithmetic and consistency of the methodology.
Whether the same benefit has been counted more than once.
Whether subsequent transfers have been confused with additional receipts.
Ibori’s case illustrates why this matters. Part of his argument concerned accounts through which proceeds had subsequently passed. However, the prosecution’s calculation valued the earlier receipts, rather than the balances in those later accounts.
Understanding exactly what has been valued is essential before assessing whether an adjustment is justified.
What did the court say about hidden assets?
Patel also challenged the finding that he had sufficient available assets to meet the full order.
The court upheld the conclusion that he held substantial additional resources. Relevant circumstances included his international money laundering and his comfortable lifestyle in Dubai without access to the restrained estate.
The judgment emphasised that the burden was on Patel to establish that his available amount was below his benefit.
This underlines the importance of evidence explaining what happened to the proceeds, what assets remain and how ongoing expenditure has been funded. A schedule of identified restrained assets may not, by itself, establish the defendant’s total available amount.
What about property held in a spouse’s name?
Sabina Patel’s separate appeal concerned claimed beneficial interests in two properties.
Her appeal was dismissed. The court examined the substance of the arrangements, including the documents, business dealings and explanations provided.
Registration on a property title did not establish the beneficial interests she claimed. Signing documents as a trustee also did not establish a personal entitlement to the trust property.
For third-party claims, the financial history and supporting evidence can therefore be as important as the registered ownership.
How can a forensic accountant assist?
The practical message is that restraint alone does not justify removing inflation uplift. A challenge to the financial calculation needs to identify the particular error or evidential issue.
Beyond Forensic Accounting assists solicitors and counsel with independent reviews of section 16 statements, bank analysis, inflation calculations, duplication, available amount disputes and the financial evidence supporting third-party property claims.
Judgment: R v Ibori [2026] EWCA Crim 1396
