Jonathan Lennon KC secures successful outcome for his client in another POCA civil recovery case
High Court recognised that a POCA Civil Recovery Order ought properly to recognise the Defendant’s outstanding liability for a Restitution Order made by a US Court.
Jonathan was instructed by Shahid Miah of DBT & Partners for the first Defendant on a claim for civil recovery of over £4M of crypto-currency. The claim had been made in the absence of the Defendant who at the time had been serving a sentence in the USA for a high profile hacking case involving the hijacking of more than 130 Twitter accounts in July 2020 including those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Elon Musk; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66007724.
In 2023 a New York court sentenced the Defendant to 5 years imprisonment and made a Restitution Order of over $2M to be paid by the Defendant to victims of his offending. The DPP’s claim for civil recovery under Pt 5 of POCA was issued in the High Court in April 2024.
After the DPP secured a Recovery Order in principle, but before handing down the Defendant intervened. Having been released from prison he denied that he had been served with the claim and the Acknowledgment of Service whilst in US custody as claimed by the DPP.
The Defendant sought an opportunity to argue against the making of the proposed Recovery Order in the terms sought by the DPP. It was argued that the procedure adopted was unfair as the Defendant had had no opportunity to argue against its terms. He also sought to argue that the DPP’s position on the proposed Recovery Order was an infringement of his Article 6 rights and his A1P1 rights because the proposed Order would deprive him of the only assets available to him to discharge his liability under the US Restitution Order. He sought an Order that would enable the assets to be recovered, whilst recognising his liability to the US Court.
Following Jonathan Lennon KC’s submissions, the Defendant was permitted to argue his case, which led to the DPP finally agreeing to a consent Order which protected his position as regards his US liability.
The Court recognised the ‘highly unusual’ nature of the case.
The case is a good example of the application of tactical acumen - demonstrating that even an almost final Order can be challenged where there has been some procedural unfairness, or where an existing overseas court Order could be discharged from the same assets sought by a law enforcement agency in this country.
DPP v O’Connor; https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3000
