Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court, in allowing the prosecution's appeal, held that an arrangement between a fraudster (B), who had allegedly duped victims into buying into non-existent motor insurance, and the defendant, who had set up two bank accounts into which the victims had paid money, was capable of constituting an offence under s 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Accordingly, a ruling by a trial judge that the defendant had no case to answer, which had been upheld in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, was erroneous. What rendered the property 'criminal property' in the present case was not the arrangement made between B and the defendant, but the fact that it had been obtained from the victims by deception.