Proceeds of crime – Confiscation order. A confiscation order was varied, so as to include a tainted gift, namely money which the defendant had given to his girlfriend for the purchase of a council house. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the prosecution's appeal, ruled that the possibility of hardship or injustice to a third party was not the relevant test under s 6(5)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended, and that, accordingly, the Recorder had fallen into error in applying the concept of proportionality in s 6(5)(b), in circumstances where he had ruled that it would be disproportionate to include the tainted gift in the confiscation order made against the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to money laundering.