The UK Supreme Court ruled to confiscate the difference between the higher income the accused of the crime of fraud received by lying on his resume and the lower income he would have earned had he not committed the crime.

The case began after the subject obtained the position of Executive Director at a charity in 2004 where he remained until 2015, due to false and misleading statements he made in his curriculum vitae, such as having a degree in Social Policy from the University of Bristol, Master of Philosophy. in Poverty and Social Justice from the same university, MBA from the University of Edinburgh and currently pursuing a PhD in Ethics and Management at the University of Plymouth. Regarding his professional experience, he indicated that he worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs and in other organizations as a Director.

The foregoing allowed the Prosecutor’s Office to request a confiscation order based on the 2002 Criminal Deed, an application which was accepted by the District Court but was revoked by the High Court considering it was disproportionate, because the defendant, “(…) has paid the total value of the remuneration he received. Therefore, the situation is analogous to the recovery of the benefits received. And the confiscation of the value of a benefit when the benefit has been repaid is a “double return” which goes beyond the confiscation and constitutes a penalty.”

In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that, “(…) although the provision of services is not such a remedy, services can never be recovered in the same way as money or goods (i.e., special recovery from services is not possible) and, in any case , the service is usually carried out before the receipt of the victory, so the restoration language is inappropriate. If the forfeiture order does not reflect a reduction in the value of services rendered, while requiring the defendant to pay back the net proceeds, the order will constitute a double reinstatement or what might be more accurately called a “double refund.” It would be disproportionate.”

On the other hand, it is stated that, “(…) in order to ensure that the fraudster does not profit from his criminal act, the conditions of proportionality in the seizure of what is obtained must be observed and for that it must be remembered that the relevant profit from the fraud is proportional to the return. , is not the total net profit but the difference between the highest profit the defendant would have earned and the lowest profit he would have made if he had not resorted to fraud and had therefore not been offered a particular job.”

Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that, “(…) in cases of cv fraud, focusing solely on the provision of services, where the fraudster has given all the value for the profits received, and to the exclusion of where the provision of services constitutes a criminal offense, is usually disproportionate to confiscate all the net proceeds obtained. But it would be proportionate to confiscate the difference between the higher income earned as a result of the cv fraud and the lower income the defendant would have earned.”

Based on this, the UK’s highest court returned the foreclosure order requested by the Prosecutor’s Office.

See United Kingdom Supreme Court Decision No. 24-2022.