{"title":"R v andrews:简历欺诈者的审判日?对最高法院判决的案例评注[2022]UKSC 24","authors":"Eli Baxter, S. Hair","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v73i4.1062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crime pays. Therefore, it is paramount that offenders are not permitted to retain the illicit profits derived from their course of offending. That is the purpose of the criminal law confiscation regime, which applies to a plethora of different offences where the State confiscates the ill-gotten gains the offender has retained after sentencing. This commentary focuses on one of these offences, the colloquially named ‘CV fraud’. A relatively novel phenomenon in English law, CV fraud has come to the fore as a result of R v Andrewes, a recent Supreme Court decision. This commentary assesses this decision and ultimately concludes that while the Supreme Court’s approach is sound in principle, it does not provide a solution which encompasses the broader spectrum of cases falling within the category of CV fraud. The Andrewes approach to the calculation of ‘criminal benefit’ may therefore require considerable adaptation in future cases. Perhaps most importantly, the absence of discussion on causation leaves this corner of the confiscation regime a grey area. This paper sets out to offer a principled solution which might resolve this issue.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"R v Andrewes: judgment day for CV fraudsters? Case commentary on the Supreme Court decision reported at [2022] UKSC 24\",\"authors\":\"Eli Baxter, S. Hair\",\"doi\":\"10.53386/nilq.v73i4.1062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Crime pays. Therefore, it is paramount that offenders are not permitted to retain the illicit profits derived from their course of offending. That is the purpose of the criminal law confiscation regime, which applies to a plethora of different offences where the State confiscates the ill-gotten gains the offender has retained after sentencing. This commentary focuses on one of these offences, the colloquially named ‘CV fraud’. A relatively novel phenomenon in English law, CV fraud has come to the fore as a result of R v Andrewes, a recent Supreme Court decision. This commentary assesses this decision and ultimately concludes that while the Supreme Court’s approach is sound in principle, it does not provide a solution which encompasses the broader spectrum of cases falling within the category of CV fraud. The Andrewes approach to the calculation of ‘criminal benefit’ may therefore require considerable adaptation in future cases. Perhaps most importantly, the absence of discussion on causation leaves this corner of the confiscation regime a grey area. This paper sets out to offer a principled solution which might resolve this issue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v73i4.1062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v73i4.1062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
犯罪支付。因此,最重要的是不允许违法者保留其犯罪过程中所得的非法利润。这就是刑法没收制度的目的,这一制度适用于许多不同的罪行,在这些罪行中,国家没收罪犯在判刑后保留的不义之财。这篇评论主要关注其中一种犯罪行为,俗称“简历欺诈”。在英国法律中,简历欺诈是一个相对较新的现象,由于最高法院最近的一项判决——R v Andrewes案,简历欺诈已经浮出水面。本评论对这一决定进行了评估,并最终得出结论,尽管最高法院的做法在原则上是合理的,但它并没有提供一个解决方案,以涵盖属于CV欺诈类别的更广泛的案件。因此,安德鲁计算“刑事利益”的方法可能需要在未来的案件中进行相当大的调整。也许最重要的是,缺乏对因果关系的讨论使没收制度的这一角落成为一个灰色地带。本文旨在提供一个原则性的解决方案,以解决这一问题。
R v Andrewes: judgment day for CV fraudsters? Case commentary on the Supreme Court decision reported at [2022] UKSC 24
Crime pays. Therefore, it is paramount that offenders are not permitted to retain the illicit profits derived from their course of offending. That is the purpose of the criminal law confiscation regime, which applies to a plethora of different offences where the State confiscates the ill-gotten gains the offender has retained after sentencing. This commentary focuses on one of these offences, the colloquially named ‘CV fraud’. A relatively novel phenomenon in English law, CV fraud has come to the fore as a result of R v Andrewes, a recent Supreme Court decision. This commentary assesses this decision and ultimately concludes that while the Supreme Court’s approach is sound in principle, it does not provide a solution which encompasses the broader spectrum of cases falling within the category of CV fraud. The Andrewes approach to the calculation of ‘criminal benefit’ may therefore require considerable adaptation in future cases. Perhaps most importantly, the absence of discussion on causation leaves this corner of the confiscation regime a grey area. This paper sets out to offer a principled solution which might resolve this issue.