Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows enforcement authorities to recover the proceeds of unlawful conduct in the High Court without any criminal conviction, and to require those holding unexplained wealth to account for it. We explain how each regime operates.

In brief

• Civil recovery does not depend on any prosecution or conviction.

• The enforcement authority must prove its case on the balance of probabilities, and must identify the kind of unlawful conduct relied upon.

• Property may be frozen pending a claim, and claims may be brought up to 20 years after the cause of action arose.

• An Unexplained Wealth Order requires the respondent to explain how property was obtained.

Recovery without a conviction

Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") enables the proceeds of crime to be recovered by civil proceedings in the High Court, independently of the criminal courts. The claim is brought against the property itself, and no conviction is needed. This guide explains the civil recovery regime, and the related Unexplained Wealth Order ("UWO").

The civil recovery claim

Section 240 provides that the powers in Part 5 are exercisable whether or not any criminal proceedings have been brought in connection with the property. The enforcement authority - the National Crime Agency, HM Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Public Prosecutions - must prove that the property is, or represents, property obtained through unlawful conduct. If the court is satisfied that the property is recoverable, it must make a recovery order vesting it in a trustee for civil recovery (section 266).

"Unlawful conduct" is defined in section 241, and whether it occurred is decided on the balance of probabilities (section 241(3)). As the Supreme Court confirmed in Gale v Serious Organised Crime Agency [2011] UKSC 49, the unlawful conduct need only be proved to the civil standard, and Article 6 of the Convention does not require the criminal standard to be applied, even where the respondent has been acquitted of related offences abroad. The authority need not prove a specific offence. However, as Sullivan J held in R (Director of the Assets Recovery Agency) v Green [2005] EWHC 3168 (Admin), it must set out the particular kind or kinds of unlawful conduct on which it relies, and a claim cannot be sustained solely on the basis that a respondent has no identifiable lawful income to explain his lifestyle.

Property freezing orders

So as to preserve property whilst a claim is pursued, the enforcement authority may apply, if necessary without notice, for a property freezing order prohibiting any dealing with specified property (section 245A). The test is whether there is a "good arguable case" that the property is or includes recoverable property. The court may make exclusions for reasonable living and business expenses and for legal expenses, but a legal expenses exclusion must be limited to reasonable expenses, must specify a total amount, and is subject to the "required conditions" governing the release of frozen funds for legal costs (sections 245C and 286A).

There is no short limitation period. By section 27A of the Limitation Act 1980, proceedings for a recovery order may be brought up to 20 years after the cause of action accrued.

Unexplained Wealth Orders

The UWO, introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, is an investigative tool rather than a power of recovery. By section 362A, the High Court may, on the application of an enforcement authority, order a respondent to explain the nature and extent of his interest in property and how he obtained it.

Under section 362B, the court must be satisfied of several requirements: that there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent holds the property and that its value exceeds £50,000; that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent's known lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient to obtain it (or that it was obtained through unlawful conduct); and that either the respondent is a politically exposed person, or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he (or a person connected with him) is or has been involved in serious crime. Even where those requirements are met, the court retains a discretion whether to make the order (National Crime Agency v Baker [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin)). In that case, Lang J also held that the use of complex offshore structures is not, without more, a ground for suspecting wrongdoing.

The meaning of "politically exposed person" was considered in Hajiyeva v National Crime Agency [2020] EWCA Civ 108, the first UWO case to reach the appellate courts, in which the Court of Appeal held that the chairman of a majority state-owned bank, and his family member, fell within the definition.

When making a UWO, the court may also make an interim freezing order so as to prevent the property being dissipated and any later recovery order being frustrated (section 362J).

How DWK Law can help

DWK Law advise and represent respondents to civil recovery claims, property freezing orders and Unexplained Wealth Orders, including challenges to the evidential basis of a claim and applications for the release of funds.

Speak to a member of our team in confidence on 020 3179 2924, or by email to info@dwklaw.co.uk.

DWK Law. This guide is for general information only and is not legal advice. The law is stated as at the 6th November 2026 and may have changed since. Advice should be taken on the facts of any particular case.