Gareth Jones
Oxford Brookes University
A victim of a crime may claim that the criminal must make restitution of the benefit gained at his expense. The enrichment may arise directly from the criminal act. For example, a criminal demands money with menaces or obtains Property by fraud. No legal system will allow him to retain his enrichment gained at his victim's expense. More difficult problems arise if the criminal's enrichment is an indirect enrichment, for example, if he or members of his family used information relating to his criminal activities and published his story. The victim's common law claim may be defeated by such submissions as: the benefit was not gained at the plaintiff's expense or the criminal did not act wrongfully in using the information so acquired. There is also the forfeiture rule which insures, in England, that neither the legal nor beneficial title to property vests in the criminal; in contrast, in the United States, the criminal will be deemed to hold the property on constructive trust. These issues are discussed in Part I and Part II of the article respectively. Part III of the article discusses briefly the English legislation which seeks to deprive criminals of the profits of their criminal activities. An important statute, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is not well drafted. The existence of such statutes should not exclude the possibility of a common law restitutionary claim where no confiscation order has been, or can be, made. This point is examined further in Part IV of the article, which discusses the implications of the important decision of the English Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v. Blake in 1998, where the defendants conduct amounted, not only to a breach of contract, but to a serious criminal offense. Part V of the article asks whether there should be further legislative intervention and suggests that the American statutes provide only limited guidance for the English draftsman. The nature and scope of any future English legislation must now take into account the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998. Its possible impact is discussed in the final Part, VI, of the article.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2000, 2001
DOI 10.2202/1565-3404.1002
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,107
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Incitement: A Study in Language Crime.Joseph Jaconelli - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (2):245-265.
Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon.Andrei Poama - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (4):605-623.
The Limits of Criminal Culpability.Mark Thornton - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 25 (1):159-175.
The Legal Person in the Criminal Justice of Lituania.Jonas Prapiestis & Agnė Baranskaitė - 2012 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 19 (1):293-314.
Criminal Liability for Negligent Accountancy.Justinas Sigitas Pečkaitis - 2013 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 20 (1):343-357.
Terrorizing Criminal Law.Lucia Zedner - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):99-121.
Participatory Democracy and Criminal Justice.Albert W. Dzur - 2012 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):115-129.
The Political Logic of Victim Impact Statements.Brian Rosebury - 2011 - Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (1):39-67.


Added to PP index

Total views
5 ( #1,148,690 of 2,428,027 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #511,645 of 2,428,027 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes