|
Raymond
May, 53, from Chislehurst, was supposed to pay back the
money within three years of a 2003 court order after he
was convicted for his part in a racket in 2002.
May, who owns a £2.5 million house in Bromley but claims
to be a gardener and odd-jobs man, was handed a
five-year sentence for his part in a swindle which
involved selling high-value computer chips to companies.
He has persistently appealed against the order to
recover the proceeds of his crime, made by government
agency the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO).
His final appeal was dismissed by the House of Lords on
June 2 last year. It has been reported that £155,000 has
been repaid but only by a third party.
The RCPO claimed the delay in recouping the money was
caused by third party claims to some of the assets it
wanted to seize.
An RCPO spokesperson said: "The involvement of these
third parties greatly complicated the application and
forced a trial. That trial could not take place until
May 2009.
"We were able to settle one claim before the trial
started. We settled two more at the start of the trial,
and we successfully defeated the fourth. But judgment
was not handed down until 22 July 2009."
May was told when he was sentenced that he would receive
a further five years in jail if he defaulted on paying
what he owed.
The RCPO spokesperson added: "We are asking the
magistrates court to activate his default sentence and a
hearing has been fixed for September 29. We took this
action as soon as it became open to us.
"At no stage have we done anything other than act
swiftly to preserve Mr May's assets and then to enforce
payment of the order."
But May's original prosecuting lawyer criticised the
length of time it has taken to recoup any money.
Oliver Sells QC told reporters: "It is a signal failure
that so little has yet been recovered from a
confiscation order which has been upheld by the Court of
Appeal and the House of Lords.
"It is obviously in the public interest that orders
should be enforced in good time.
"Failure to do so will risk conveying to convicted
criminals the message that protracted delay will
diminish the prospect of recovery.
"That in turn may weaken the effectiveness of the law in
other cases.
Source
: Bromley Times, United Kingdom, dated 12/08/2009
|
