Propose a change

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

303Z39 Exclusions

(1) The power to vary a crypto wallet freezing order includes (amongst other things) power to make exclusions from the prohibition on making withdrawals or payments from the crypto wallet to which the order applies. (2) Exclusions from the prohibition may also be made when the order is made. (3) An exclusion may (amongst other things) make provision for the purpose of enabling a person by or for whom the crypto wallet is administered— (a) to meet the person’s reasonable living expenses, or (b) to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation. (4) An exclusion may be made subject to conditions. (5) Where a magistrates’ court exercises the power to make an exclusion for the purpose of enabling a person to meet legal expenses that the person has incurred, or may incur, in respect of proceedings under this Part, it must ensure that the exclusion— (a) is limited to reasonable legal expenses that the person has reasonably incurred or that the person reasonably incurs, (b) specifies the total amount that may be released for legal expenses in pursuance of the exclusion, and (c) is made subject to the same conditions as would be the required conditions (see section 286A) if the order had been made under section 245A (in addition to any conditions imposed under subsection (4)). (6) A magistrates’ court, in deciding whether to make an exclusion for the purpose of enabling a person to meet legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this Part— (a) must have regard to the desirability of the person being represented in any proceedings under this Part in which the person is a participant, and (b) must disregard the possibility that legal representation of the person in any such proceedings might, were an exclusion not made— (i) be made available under arrangements made for the purposes of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or (ii) be funded by the Department of Justice. (7) The sheriff’s power to make exclusions may not be exercised for the purpose of enabling any person to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this Part. (8) The power to make exclusions must, subject to subsection (6), be exercised with a view to ensuring, so far as practicable, that there is not undue prejudice to the taking of any steps under this Part to forfeit cryptoassets that are recoverable property or intended by any person for use in unlawful conduct.

Your change, as a redline

303Z39 Exclusions

(1) The power to vary a crypto wallet freezing order includes (amongst other things) power to make exclusions from the prohibition on making withdrawals or payments from the crypto wallet to which the order applies. (2) Exclusions from the prohibition may also be made when the order is made. (3) An exclusion may (amongst other things) make provision for the purpose of enabling a person by or for whom the crypto wallet is administered— (a) to meet the person’s reasonable living expenses, or (b) to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation. (4) An exclusion may be made subject to conditions. (5) Where a magistrates’ court exercises the power to make an exclusion for the purpose of enabling a person to meet legal expenses that the person has incurred, or may incur, in respect of proceedings under this Part, it must ensure that the exclusion— (a) is limited to reasonable legal expenses that the person has reasonably incurred or that the person reasonably incurs, (b) specifies the total amount that may be released for legal expenses in pursuance of the exclusion, and (c) is made subject to the same conditions as would be the required conditions (see section 286A) if the order had been made under section 245A (in addition to any conditions imposed under subsection (4)). (6) A magistrates’ court, in deciding whether to make an exclusion for the purpose of enabling a person to meet legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this Part— (a) must have regard to the desirability of the person being represented in any proceedings under this Part in which the person is a participant, and (b) must disregard the possibility that legal representation of the person in any such proceedings might, were an exclusion not made— (i) be made available under arrangements made for the purposes of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or (ii) be funded by the Department of Justice. (7) The sheriff’s power to make exclusions may not be exercised for the purpose of enabling any person to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under this Part. (8) The power to make exclusions must, subject to subsection (6), be exercised with a view to ensuring, so far as practicable, that there is not undue prejudice to the taking of any steps under this Part to forfeit cryptoassets that are recoverable property or intended by any person for use in unlawful conduct.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds