Attachment and seizure cannot continue after settlement and closure of the underlying proceedings; impugned orders were set aside.

Where attached office units had already been returned after settlement of the civil dispute and the criminal case had been closed, continued attachment could not be justified and was set aside. The Tribunal also held that cash, documents and digital devices seized from the appellants could not be retained once the related proceedings had ended in closure and no surviving predicate offence remained on the recorded facts. On that basis, the impugned attachment, seizure and retention orders were interfered with and the connected appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the attachment and confirmation of attachment of the two office units could be sustained when the appellants had settled the civil dispute and returned the units to the complainants, and the criminal case against them had been closed; (ii) whether the seizure and retention of cash, documents and digital devices could be sustained in the absence of a surviving predicate offence and in light of the settlement and closure report.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment and confirmation of attachment of the two office units could be sustained when the appellants had settled the civil dispute and returned the units to the complainants, and the criminal case against them had been closed.

Analysis: The attachment related to two office units which, on the facts found, no longer remained with the appellants. The dispute concerning those units had been settled in civil proceedings and the criminal case against the appellants had been closed. In those circumstances, there was no basis to continue treating the units as property liable to attachment against the appellants.

Conclusion: The attachment of the two office units was not sustainable and was interfered with in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure and retention of cash, documents and digital devices could be sustained in the absence of a surviving predicate offence and in light of the settlement and closure report.

Analysis: The seized items included cash, documents and digital devices recovered from the appellants and their offices. The Tribunal found that the respondent could not justify continued retention once the predicate proceedings had ended in closure and the related civil dispute had been settled. On those facts, the seized material could not be retained as proceeds of crime against the appellants.

Conclusion: The seizure and retention of the cash, documents and digital devices were not justified and the impugned orders were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The connected appeals were allowed and the impugned attachment, seizure and retention orders were set aside, with no basis left to sustain the action against the appellants on the facts recorded.

---