V1605 - Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Bill 2020

Watch
Poll: Should this Bill be made into law?
As many as are of the opinion, aye. (42)
85.71%
Of the contrary, no. (3)
6.12%
Abstain. (4)
8.16%
This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
B1605 - Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Bill 2020, TSR Government


Image

A
BILL
TO
Make provisions to stop the exemption of British and EEA politicians from Unexplained Wealth Orders


BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Amendments to be made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

1. In Part 8, Chapter 2, Section 5, Subsection 362B (7)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State,” shall now read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State,”.

2. In Part 8, Chapter 3, Section 5, Subsection 362B (7)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State other than the United Kingdom or another EEA State,” shall now read “An individual who is, or has been, entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation or by a State,”.

2. Commencement, Extent and Short Title
1. This Act comes into force upon Royal Assent.
2. This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
3. This Act shall be known as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Bill 2020.


Notes:
Spoiler:
Show

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 gave the power for Unexplained Wealth Orders (See here for details) to be served on people who are linked with criminal gangs or a ‘politically exposed person’. This politically exposed person cannot currently be from the EEA or the UK. This means that an MP from the UK could not be served with one, but a member of the Russian Parliament could be. The distinction is a problem that subverts the notion that everyone is equal under the law in the UK.

A Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) is a civil power and an investigation tool. It requires the respondent to provide information on certain matters (their lawful ownership of a property, and the means by which it was obtained). It is important to note that, as an investigation power, a UWO is not (by itself) a power to recover assets. It is an addition to a number of powers already available in the act to investigate and recover the proceeds of crime and should therefore not be viewed in isolation.

The amended sections are as follows:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...9/section/362B
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...9/section/396B

Credit for the original bill belongs to LemonBotex

Changes from B1599:
The government wishes to thank those who gave comment on B1599 and now presents it with the correct acts and subsections stated, in addition to some improved notes.

0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
Happy to support.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
7) An item can be withdrawn at any point. Once an item has been withdrawn it cannot be submitted for a further reading or sent to division during the same term.

No.

Beyond that these rules are as they are for a reason.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
7) An item can be withdrawn at any point. Once an item has been withdrawn it cannot be submitted for a further reading or sent to division during the same term.

No.

Beyond that these rules are as they are for a reason.
Would you have voted for this bill had B1599 not been submitted?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
Naturally i fully support this. There is no plausible way such a move can be seen in a negative light, it being not only just but crucial that people view their representatives as equal before the law.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
Naturally i fully support this. There is no plausible way such a move can be seen in a negative light, it being not only just but crucial that people view their representatives as equal before the law.
You are aware that with this change the overwhelming majority (over 90% of people) in the UK won't be governed by this law?
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
(Original post by 04MR17)
Would you have voted for this bill had B1599 not been submitted?
Before you go "well last time", no

"Beyond that these rules are as they are for a reason."
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by Napp)
Naturally i fully support this. There is no plausible way such a move can be seen in a negative light, it being not only just but crucial that people view their representatives as equal before the law.
Apart from it being the repeal of protections from corruption...
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Before you go "well last time", no

"Beyond that these rules are as they are for a reason."
Why not?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
You are aware that with this change the overwhelming majority (over 90% of people) in the UK won't be governed by this law?
What exactly does that have to do with what i said...? Nor do i see its relevance broadly for that matter.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by Napp)
What exactly does that have to do with what i said...? Nor do i see its relevance broadly for that matter.
Your claim "crucial that people view their representatives as equal before the law." is demonstrably false. They cannot be viewed as equal when it's a law only applies to some people for suspected crime.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
Surprisingly low turnout so far :beard:
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Your claim "crucial that people view their representatives as equal before the law." is demonstrably false. They cannot be viewed as equal when it's a law only applies to some people for suspected crime.
Are you intentionally misreading that statement or do you just not understand it?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
Are you intentionally misreading that statement or do you just not understand it?
Your claim is wrong regardless of how you spin it
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Your claim is wrong regardless of how you spin it
In your opinion and given your opinion is fundamentally flawed, well.. you can see the problem can’t you
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
If we're going to argue that we disagree with each other because we disagree with each other then there really isn't a point in continuing this.
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by 04MR17)
If we're going to argue that we disagree with each other because we disagree with each other then there really isn't a point in continuing this.
That wasnt what was said though? Although it's done either way so meh.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#18
The following votes have been removed:

Aye:

El Salvador (Not an MP)
S-Ryan2020 (Double vote seat 25)
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#19
Order, order!

The Ayes to the right: 40
The Noes to the left: 3
Abstains: 4

The Ayes have it, The Ayes have it. Unlock!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (185)
14.06%
I'm not sure (59)
4.48%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (387)
29.41%
I have already dropped out (37)
2.81%
I'm not a current university student (648)
49.24%

Watched Threads

View All