Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003
98EUnexplained wealth orders—assessment of unexplained
Start here
Get a plain-English read of 98E
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003.
98E Unexplained wealth orders—assessment of unexplained wealth (1) This section applies for the purpose of making an assessment of the unexplained wealth of a person against whom an unexplained wealth order is made. (2) The unexplained wealth, of a person, is the amount that in the opinion of a relevant court is— (a) the difference between— (i) the person’s total wealth; and (ii) the sum of the values of the property that the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, was not derived from serious criminal activity; and
Making unexplained wealth orders Division 7A.2 (b) less an amount equal to whichever of the following applies to the person: (i) the value of any property the person forfeited under a forfeiture order; Note A registered interstate forfeiture order is taken to be a forfeiture order under this Act (see s 139). (ii) the sum of any amounts payable by the person under a penalty order or an interstate penalty order. (3) In a proceeding against a person for an unexplained wealth order, the burden of proof is on the person to prove that— (a) the person’s wealth was not derived from serious criminal activity; and (b) an order mentioned in subsection (2) (b) applies to the person. (4) When working out the value of property for this section, the value is— (a) for wealth that has been consumed or otherwise disposed of— the greater of— (i) the value at the time the wealth was acquired; and (ii) the value immediately before the wealth was consumed or disposed of; or (b) in any other case—the greater of— (i) the value at the time the wealth was acquired; and (ii) the value at the time the application for the unexplained wealth order was made. (5) In assessing the unexplained wealth of a person, the relevant court is not required to consider any wealth of which the DPP has not provided evidence.