The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Investigations and External Orders and Requests) (Amendment) Order 2024
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
9 Powers of enforcement administrators
In article 75 (powers of enforcement administrators in respect of external orders for the recovery of specified property)— (a) in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (c), insert— (d) so far as the property consists of cryptoassets, power to destroy the property. ; (b) in paragraph (7)(a), for “or (c)” substitute “, (c) or (d)”. (c) after paragraph (8), insert— (8A) The court may confer the power mentioned in paragraph (6)(d) only where— (a) it is not reasonably practicable to realise the cryptoassets in question, or (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the realisation of the cryptoassets would be contrary to the public interest, having regard in particular to how likely it is that the entry of the cryptoassets into general circulation would facilitate criminal conduct by any person. (8B) An order conferring that power— (a) must set out the court’s assessment of the market value of the cryptoassets to which it relates; (b) may confer power to destroy the cryptoassets only to the extent that their market value, as set out in the order, is less than or equal to the amount remaining to be paid under the external order. (8C) If the administrator destroys any cryptoassets in the exercise of that power, the accused is to be treated as having paid, towards satisfaction of the external order, an amount equal to the market value, as set out in the order, of the cryptoassets which have been destroyed. .
9 Powers of enforcement administrators
In article 75 (powers of enforcement administrators in respect of external orders for the recovery of specified property)— (a) in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (c), insert— (d) so far as the property consists of cryptoassets, power to destroy the property. ; (b) in paragraph (7)(a), for “or (c)” substitute “, (c) or (d)”. (c) after paragraph (8), insert— (8A) The court may confer the power mentioned in paragraph (6)(d) only where— (a) it is not reasonably practicable to realise the cryptoassets in question, or (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the realisation of the cryptoassets would be contrary to the public interest, having regard in particular to how likely it is that the entry of the cryptoassets into general circulation would facilitate criminal conduct by any person. (8B) An order conferring that power— (a) must set out the court’s assessment of the market value of the cryptoassets to which it relates; (b) may confer power to destroy the cryptoassets only to the extent that their market value, as set out in the order, is less than or equal to the amount remaining to be paid under the external order. (8C) If the administrator destroys any cryptoassets in the exercise of that power, the accused is to be treated as having paid, towards satisfaction of the external order, an amount equal to the market value, as set out in the order, of the cryptoassets which have been destroyed. .
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.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
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 itThink 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.