POCA civil recovery case success

17 Nov 2025

Shahid Miah of DBT & Partners secures a successful outcome for his client in another POCA civil recovery case

The UK High Court in London recognised that a POCA Civil Recovery Order made for the sum of £4.1 million ought properly to recognise the Defendant’s outstanding liability for a Restitution Order by a US Court in the Southern District of New York US Court.

Shahid Miah of DBT & Partners acted for the Defendant Mr Joseph O’Connor on a claim for civil recovery of over £4M of cryptocurrency. The claim had been made in the absence of the Defendant who at the time had been serving a sentence in the USA for a high profile hacking case involving the hijacking of more than 130 Twitter accounts in July 2020 including those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Kim Kardashian.

The case has attracted significant media attention due to it involving not only the hacking of high -profile individuals but both UK and US legal jurisdictions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66007724.

Joseph James O’Connor ordered to pay back over £4m in Bitcoin after hacking celebrity X accounts | US News | Sky News

Joseph James O’Connor: British hacker who hijacked Elon Musk’s Twitter account told to repay £4m in Bitcoin | The Independent

Twitter hack: Joseph O’Connor jailed for celebrity cyber attack – BBC News

The DPP’s claim for civil recovery under Pt 5 of POCA was issued in the High Court in April 2024. The background to the crypto-currency offences was the hacking of the computer systems of a US Manhattan based cryptocurrency provider and thereafter the theft of what is now valued by the High Court in the region of £4.1million. In 2023, having been extradited from Spain to the US, Mr O’Connor pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering in proceedings in the Southern District of New York. Mr O’Connor also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, two counts of committing computer intrusions, making extortive communications, two counts of stalking, and making threatening communications in separate proceedings brought in the Northern District of California. A New York court sentenced Mr O’Connor to 5 years imprisonment and made a Restitution Order of over $2M to be paid by the Defendant to victims of his offending. In 2025 Mr O’Connor was removed from the US to the United Kingdom where the claim for civil recovery was made.

The High Court described this as a sophisticated cyber-intrusion which resulted in cryptocurrency being stolen which was then moved quickly through dozens of transactions before being exchanged for Bitcoin.

Prosecutor Adrian Foster Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division said the civil recovery order showed that “even when someone is not convicted in the UK, we are still able to ensure they do not benefit from their criminality… Joseph James O’Connor targeted well-known individuals and used their accounts to scam people out of their crypto assets and money”.

Mr O’Connor via his UK legal team intervened and sought an opportunity to argue against the making of the proposed Recovery Order in the terms sought by the DPP. It was argued that the procedure adopted was unfair as the Defendant had had no opportunity to argue against its terms. He also sought to argue that the DPP’s position on the proposed Recovery Order was an infringement of his Article 6 rights and his A1P1 rights because the proposed Order would deprive him of the only assets available to him to discharge his liability under the US Restitution Order. Mr O’Connor sought an Order that would enable the assets to be recovered, whilst recognising his liability to the US Court. Having been released from prison in the US he denied that he had been served with the claim and the Acknowledgment of Service whilst in US custody as claimed by the DPP.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 5: Civil Recovery or Criminal Recovery?

Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (or POCA 2002) enables enforcement agencies to recover property which has been obtained through unlawful conduct or organised crime, such as money laundering. This right can be exercised by the National Crime Agency (NCA) or another authority whether or not any proceedings have been brought in relation to a criminal offence.

Read More

Section 22 Proceeds of Crime Act: A Second Bite of the Cherry

Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act refers to the revisitation of earlier confiscation orders that were made at a time when the full amount originally believed to have been illegally obtained by a defendant was not available for recovery, and can currently be called upon by the prosecution at any time in order to confiscate the remaining sum.

If a defendant has come into an inheritance, won money or property, received any form of compensation, accumulated savings or purchased goods or property, Section 22 permits these finances or assets to be confiscated by the law until the total value of the original benefit figure has been covered.

Is Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act Unfair?

There are a number of potential problems regarding the justness and morality of this particular piece of legislation. Firstly, if the defendant is not the only individual who has invested in a property, for example, and that property is duly confiscated by a law enforcement body citing Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, any third party involved will potentially be required to forfeit their portion of the investment despite being innocent of any crime.

Secondly comes the matter of rehabilitation. According to legislation passed back in 1974, the UK legal system should be thoroughly engaged in the rehabilitation of offenders – yet there is very little possibility of this being achieved when those who have committed an offence in the past are liable to have any finances, property or assets seized from them at any given time. The possibility of purchasing a home or setting up a business becomes far more difficult, potentially forcing the individual in question to seek out “under the radar” or unlawful ways to make a living once again and thus creating a vicious circle of financial crime.

If a defendant owns property already, and that property increases in value over a number of years, there is always the possibility of Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act kicking in and any amount of interest that has accumulated being seized, trapping the individual in place.

Pensions, too, are potentially no longer safe. From 2015 onwards, pension pots have been accessible in full to the people set up to benefit from them. However, because of this they have also become “fair game” under Section 22. Stripping an elderly individual of their financial support could be argued to be very unfair, no matter their criminal history.

As of the present time, it is up to the court to determine when sufficient time has passed since the original offence to confirm that Section 22 can no longer be invoked. Prosecutors can also argue that significant inflation has taken place since the original confiscation order was made, meaning that the law can confiscate more money or assets than was originally stated.

How Can I Protect Myself from the Application of Section 22?

The best approach to take in order to steer clear of the threat of Section 22 is to ensure that there is a clear and transparent paper trail for any and all sums of money, assets and properties that may have come into your possession, for example by way of inheritance, interest in property or accumulating savings.

You should seriously consider engaging the services of an experienced confiscation specialist to help you to protect yourself from incorrect use or misuse of this legislation.

Can You Appeal a POCA Section 22 Judgement or Confiscation? 

It is possible to appeal against a decision in a court of appeals to confiscate your goods, property, finances and assets under Section 22 of the POCA 2002, although many of the specifics of this legislation still rely heavily on the court’s discretion.

One way of successfully arguing against the confiscation of property, assets or monies is to engage a confiscation lawyer to study and contest the “trigger condition” stated by the prosecution. This term refers to the occurence or change in conditions that has prompted the prosecution to revisit the confiscating procedures in question. If, for example, the prosecution has argued that your available finances have significantly increased since the original confiscation took place, and you and your legal advisor are able to conclusively prove that they have not, or there are third party interests that have not been taken into consideration during your original confiscation proceedings or your original solicitor failed to advise you adequately in respect of the confiscation proceedings. All of these scenarios present potential grounds to appeal the prosecution’s decision to pursue asset seizure under Section 22.

Another approach is to argue against fairness of these proceedings. If it can be argued that the passage of time since the original confiscation is excessive, or proven that assets that you now possess are not under your sole name and that seizing them would negatively affect an innocent third party, your appeal may be successful.

If you have been affected by Section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, DBT & Partners can help. In these cases, it’s vital to seek profess