Case No. DTA-8-2012

50.Mr Lakhanpaul is an officer of the NCA. He provided three witness statements for the purposes of these proceedings: In the first dated 11 October 2013 he stated that a copy of the Confiscation Order and the Schedule of realisable property taken into account was exhibited to his statement. The Schedule was not exhibited, the later statements deal with the point that no schedule has been found.51.The first statement was made in response to the first witness statements of Terence and Ruth Adams. Following service of those statements Mr Lakhanpaul examined the financial position of Terence Adams in order to determine the truth of his assertion that his expenditure and that of his wife is accounted for by loans from family, friends and business associates. He has also examined their financial position to compare their lifestyles against their income. Terence Adams has one bank account. Between 5 October 2010-November 2012 there have been 8 credits totalling £11,756.42 of which 6 emanate from Universal Imports. This is consistent with Terence Adams statements that he was working for the company in 2010/2011. Officers of the company visited the premises in Hatton Garden and obtained a statement from Moshe Tobi confirming Terence Adams’s employment. The remaining credit to the account had been investigated and no issues arise in relation to them. 52.The Co-operative bank accounts of Ruth Adams are described as “more significant to the couple’s financial affairs”. It is the opinion of Mr Lakhanpaul that these monies, together with cash, fund the couple’s lifestyle. There are five accounts in the name of Ruth Adams, three are dormant, the remaining two appear to be the sole source of any identifiable funds supporting the lifestyle of Terence and Ruth Adams. On 12 August 2009 Ruth Adams received £220,803.71 which represented half of the equity in the matrimonial home. The funds were deposited in her bank account. In addition to the proceeds of sale there are other credits into the same account. For the period 26 April 2007 to 17 September 2013 the additional credits total £142,397.98. In addition in the second bank account during the same period there are two credits totalling £16,442.12. Thus, in addition to the proceeds of sale, there have been credits to the two accounts of Ruth Adams since 2007 in the total sum of £158,840.10. The bank statements demonstrate that a significant number of the credits which are either described as “credit” or “counter card CR” are for “rounded” sums of money. There is no evidence of any regular income or receipt of any state benefits disclosed in the bank accounts. Payments from three sources: Broking Limited; Dale Golder; Barbican Supplies Limited/ Brian Higgins were investigated. Broking Limited53.The following payments were credited to the bank accounts of Ruth Adams: £15,000 2 March 2012£10,000 31 July 2013Inquiries with Companies House reveal that Broking Limited was incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 24 March 2011, the director is registered as Mr Mark Phillip King. The abbreviated balance sheet from the annual accounts relating to the year ending 1 March 2012 declares total company assets of £700 and total net assets (liabilities) of £308. There is an obvious disparity between the substantial size of the payments made from Broking Limited and the size of the assets and liabilities declared in the annual company accounts declared for the period. There is no company website, no search engine listing nor any other trace of the company save for the details available through Companies House. Dale Golder54.The following payments were made directly into the current account of Ruth Adams:£12,500 18 January 2013£4,130 8 April 2013£35,000 28 May 2013Barbican Supplies Limited/Brian HigginsRuth Adams refers to payments of £30,000 and £10,000 from Brian Higgins. It is her evidence that she has repaid £30,000. Mr Higgins states that this money was repaid by Ruth Adams into his business account by cheque in June 2008. In his first witness statement Mr Lakhanpaul identifies the fact that there is no evidence of any cheques for the sum of £30,000 being paid out from either of Mrs Adams’s accounts at any time. In a subsequent statement Mr Higgins has stated that a credit of £30,406.56 to his Barbican Supplies Limited account on 30 May 2008 represents repayment of the monies from Ruth Adams. The original loan and repayment were made through Garstangs solicitors. 55.The credits identified from these three sources total £116,630 of the £158,840.10 paid into the two active Co-operative bank accounts. Ruth Adams claims that she received a further £27,000 in payments by way of loan (cash, cheques and bank transfers) from the selling of personal items to family members. Mr Lakhanpaul is unable to trace the source of any other credits into these bank accounts.56.Mr Lakhanpaul identifies as a “noticeable characteristic” of the spending activity, the reliance upon cash to make payments. Between 29 June 2013 to 16 September 2013 Ruth Adams paid £2583.40 to the Court House Clinic for a weight loss dietary programme. £1068.70, was in cash. Between 28 June 2013 and 16 September 2013 Ruth Adams withdrew £550 in cash from her accounts. This is said to demonstrate that Ruth Adams had access to cash or funding in excess of that paid into and through her bank account. Following service of Mr Lakhanpaul’s statement Ruth Adams stated that cash payments came from her friends on whose behalf she was buying sachets. Ruth Adams purchased joint spa membership for herself and her husband at the Grove Hotel, Hertfordshire commencing 28 June 2010, £210 was paid from her bank account, £3640.00 was paid by way of cash instalments. Between July 2010 - January 2011 Ruth Adams spent £12,044.99 on private dental treatment at Azamay Dental Spa. £288.00 was paid from her bank account, £11,756.99 was paid in large cash instalments. On 3 March 2010 Ruth Adams paid £2,717 for her husbands Cartier gold watch. It was sold at auction on behalf of the Receiver, £1000 of the purchase price was paid in cash. 57.Ruth Adams hires a number of storage units with AJ Stevenson’s removals. Her total expenditure for storage between 24 March 2011 - 25 September 2013 was £5,176.56. £3,205.55 was paid in cash. In the reports for the FRO Ruth Adams makes a declaration of £110 per month to the company. A1 Self Storage has refused to co-operate with the NCA’s request for documentation. Analysis of Ruth Adams bank account shows that payments were first made to A1 Self Storage on 4/11/2009, they continue sporadically until 28 August 2013. 58.It is the evidence of Mr Lakhanpaul that an analysis of the social outgoings of Terence and Ruth Adams indicates a preference for cash spending but this is difficult to quantify in the form of an evidential trail. It is axiomatic that the true origins of cash cannot properly be traced or authenticated, it implies Terence and Ruth Adams receive regular income from sources that cannot be identified. 59.The bank statements of Ruth Adams show entries relating to spending on entertainment. They include in August and December 2010, 2 payments to the Dorchester which total £769.88; 2 visits to the Royal Opera House in 2010 totalling £654; a visit to the Ivy in June 2011, to the Groucho Club in July 2011 and to Browns Hotel in November 2011 represent a total payment of £561.42; payments to Chewton Glen (a hotel) in 2011 total £2335.00 (Ruth Adams identified this as their wedding anniversary celebration). In addition on 29 June 2012 there is a debit to Harvey Nichols of £537 said to be an Amanda Wakeley dress; the trip taken to China by Ruth Adams and her daughter is demonstrated by entries in March 2013 the air fare is £2318.92, expenditure in China amounts to £917.79; a Hilton payment in December 2012 for £750 is said to represent the visit to Scotland by Ruth and Terence Adams when she went to oversee the refurbishment of the five houses of Dale Golder. Other items indicate spending on clothing and the theatre. In November 2009 when on a visit to New York which Ruth Adams stated was a present, in a two day period she spent £2835.35 on designer brand clothing. Using the entries in the bank statements Mr Lakhanpaul calculated that the average annual expenditure shown between September 2010 to September 2013 is £97,041.91. This figure does not include the cost of utilities. The applicant took issue with the ‘average’ figure identifying specific payments in identified years.60.Between August 2009 and September 2013, based upon bank accounts, Mr Lakhanpaul calculated that Terence and Ruth Adams have spent £14,909.30 on hotels, flights, restaurants and entertainment. He thought that the true figure spent on entertainment was likely to be larger given that payment can be made in cash. It was the belief of Mr Lakhanpaul that Terence Adams has a reserve of funds which provides for his lifestyle. Mr Lakhanpaul was unable to say whether those funds had been available prior to the making of the Confiscation Order or had accumulated since or was a combination of the two. He could not identify the source of the funds as being one particular source nor could he attribute actual expenditure to Terence Adams. As Mr Lakhanpaul had not spoken to the individuals in the financial investigation which led to the Confiscation Order he looked at the pattern of expenditure since 2007. It was his evidence that Ruth Adams had spent a large amount on Terence Adams’s behalf and that could not be explained away by her share of the proceeds of sale of £200,000. It was put to him that all the expenditure had been in the open, Mr Lakhanpaul denied that. He pointed to a substantial number of cash payments and the fact e.g. that it was only following the prosecution of Terence Adams for breach of the FRO that Ruth Adams disclosed the purchase of the watch for £2500. The point that was made by Mr Lakhanpaul was that his figure of £97,000 as annual expenditure excludes any cash payments and the NCA has no means of identifying expenditure that is wholly in cash. 61. Mr Lakhanpaul confirmed that prior to the criminal trial in 2007 there had been an intense investigation into the financial affairs of Terence and Ruth Adams. It was his belief that there would have been a schedule identifying the assets comprised in the realisable assets figure but he had not seen one. The officers in the original case had retired, the previous agencies had gone through two changes of organisation, finding individuals and papers was difficult. 62.Mr Lakhanpaul accepted that he had explained to Ruth Adams what was necessary in order to compile the reports, for the FRO. The requirements were for Terence Adams to provide details of income, asset transfers, and expenditure over £500 together with details of bank accounts. It was Mr Lakhanpaul’s role as the officer assigned to Terence and Ruth Adams to match what is contained in the FRO with the information provided. In doing so officers of the agency visited Moshe Tobi, and Michael Ellis. 63. The visit to Michael Ellis of Sterling Wholesale Limited was unannounced, the business is substantial. Mr Ellis also has other companies. Mr Ellis grew up in Islington and was acquainted with one of the Adams brothers, he would not say which other than it was not Terence. He was approached by Ruth Adams to help with the design and manufacture of a range of menswear for her new label N1 Angel. He met with Terence and Ruth Adams as a result of which he agreed to help on account of Terence Adams’s “vision” for the brand and the style he was trying to create. Terence Adams would visit the Sterling offices, on occasions to work on designs. Michael Ellis described Terence Adams as a “design genius” he had an exceptional eye for detail. At the first visit Michael Ellis was unable to provide Mr Lakhanpaul with any details regarding financial transactions nor was he able to provide any design sketches created by Terence Adams. Another brother involved in the business dealt with financial matters and another brother did much of the design work. It was arranged that Mr Lakhanpaul would return the following week. On that occasion Michael Ellis produced a spreadsheet which he said was created by his brother who was absent that day due to a back injury. Mr Ellis refused to give the document to Mr Lakhanpaul but allowed him to glance at it. As at 16 June 2014 N1 Angel owed Sterling Wholesale around £52,000. Michael Ellis explained the design process involving Terence Adams. His description reflected the evidence of Terence Adams to the court. It was the view of Mr Lakhanpaul who saw a number of the early garments created for N1 Angel that a lot of time and effort had gone into developing the N1 Angel brand and designing the various garments for sale. Company bank accounts for N1 Angel indicate credits from the online sales between November 2013 and May 2014 totalling around £2,000, £800 of which are purchases made by Dale Golder. Conclusion64.The issue for the Court is whether the applicant, Terence Adams, has proven on a balance of probabilities that his current assets are worth less than £651,611.00 the outstanding balance on the Confiscation Order as at July 2014. It is for Terence Adams to prove the facts necessary for a successful application. Terence and Ruth Adams have been the subject of intense investigation into their financial affairs, prior to and following the criminal proceedings in 2007. For a period of 22 months they were subject to covert surveillance. They were arrested in April 2003 and shortly thereafter a Restraint Order was made against them. Following the making of the Confiscation Order and the FRO in 2007 the level of scrutiny did not abate. The FRO required Terence Adams, Ruth Adams acting on his behalf when he was in custody, to furnish information as to his finances.65.At the time of the making of the Confiscation Order a Schedule of Assets identifying the basis of the order was required. If it existed it is no longer available. This has not caused difficulty in these proceedings as there is no real dispute as to the assets, which are likely to have been identified as realisable assets for the purpose of the Confiscation Order. It is the applicant’s case that no hidden assets were a part of the Confiscation Order. The figure for realisable assets was agreed as part of the basis of plea. The judge did not feel in a position to go behind that agreement as is evidenced by his sentencing remarks: “The prosecution are content (and I am not in a position to question their decision, nor would it be appropriate to do so) to accept that the amount of money laundered during the five-and-a-half years specified in Count 10 did not exceed £1m, and that your realisable assets, for the purposes of a confiscation order amount to £750,000. In those circumstances I, in turn, am satisfied upon the evidence that your benefit from the criminal activity which resulted in the money-laundering offence you have admitted has now to be assessed at £1,110,743 and your realisable assets, for the purposes of confiscation amount to £750,000. Accordingly I make a confiscation order in that sum.” I am satisfied that in making the Confiscation Order the judge proceeded upon the basis that no hidden assets were identified as at that date. I also accept that subsequently the applicant and his wife co-operated with the Receiver in the realising of assets. Any delay in the sale of Fallowfield was not of their making. Throughout his period of imprisonment Ruth Adams dealt with the applicant’s financial affairs insofar as they involved the realising of assets. She did so working with, on occasion, Mr Lakhanpaul of the NCA. 66.It is the applicant’s case that, as a matter of law, the respondent is not entitled now to make assertions that, at the time of the original hearing, the applicant had hidden or unidentified assets or had made tainted gifts to a third person, in addition to the assets comprised in the £750,000. It is now the respondent’s case that the applicant has access to a substantial cash reserve which could be used to pay the balance of the Confiscation Order. The applicant contends that the respondent is precluded by the decision of the trial judge and their own payment concerning the basis of the plea from asserting that, at the time of the Confiscation Order, the applicant’s assets exceeded those comprised in the agreed £750,000. Reliance is placed upon the authority of In re McKinsley and above, in particular and [44] of the judgment where Scott Baker LJ stated:“In our judgment the Administrative Court does not have jurisdiction in certificate of inadequacy proceedings to go behind the basis of the confiscation order made by the Crown Court. In our view an attempt to do so, as in this case, is an abuse of the process of the court.” 67.In my view, the wording of s 83 CJA 1998 and its purpose create a fundamental difficulty for the applicant. It cannot have been the intention of Parliament upon a Certificate of Inadequacy hearing that the court should ignore the existence of assets which are successfully concealed by a defendant when a Confiscation Order is made against him, but which are now available to pay the order. In McKinsley at [19] the purpose of the confiscation legislation was identified as ensuring that convicted criminals are forced to part with their proceeds from crime. The court at [14] identified the fact that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show he cannot pay the assessed benefit. This reflects the fact that the nature and value of the defendant’s assets is a matter known peculiarly to the defendant. Moreover, the defendant has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal to correct errors in the original Confiscation Order. The Certificate of Inadequacy procedure provides a safety net to the defendant to cover downward changes in his asset position since the making of the Confiscation Order. 68.In McKinsley it was the defendant in the Certificate of Inadequacy proceedings who was seeking to go behind the original Confiscation Order. At [6] the issue on the appeal was stated to be “about the circumstances, if any, in which it is possible for an applicant in certificate of inadequacy proceedings to challenge findings by the Crown Court as to the amount which might be realised”. It was in this context that the Court considered the purpose of the confiscation legislation and what, in fact, the defendant was seeking to do. The reasoning of the court as set out in [44] applied to the defendant in that situation. There is nothing in the judgment which suggests that the same reasoning applies to the Crown in Certificate of Inadequacy proceedings and it is upon that basis that I determine this application.69.In any event the legal point does not arise upon the facts of this case as the Crown is not challenging the finding made by the Crown Court. A positive case that the applicant’s assets were greater than £750,000 when the Confiscation Order was made has not been raised. The respondent has no evidence of when the applicant’s assets which it contends now exist were obtained nor, critically, is the court required to make a finding as to when the same occurred. It is of note that in R v. Adams above the Court of Appeal which dealt with the appeal in respect of the FRO stated at [8]:“Although, at the end of the day, the prosecution were prepared to accept the basis of plea, it remains to some extent uncertain what the full extent of the financial situation was or indeed is….”70.In considering the application it is relevant to consider the events which led to the conviction for the money laundering offence as identified in the prosecution opening for the criminal proceedings. Further, extracts from the covert surveillance demonstrate that even before their arrest Terence and Ruth Adams were prepared to devise and execute stratagems for channelling Terence Adams’s money to himself. The problem being confronted was to give Terence Adams an income which appeared legitimate and which would withstand the scrutiny of the authorities. On this matter Solly Nahome provided advice. Two false businesses were created for this purpose. Extracts from the covert surveillance demonstrate the knowledge and involvement of Ruth Adams in her husband’s financial affairs. In November 1997 Ruth Adams alerted her husband to a weakness in the companies which had been set up for the purposes of providing an apparent source of legitimate income for him. Ruth Adams is recorded as saying to her husband: “do you know what I said to Solly, right…. You know its business…the businesses the Midland. .. Although you’re putting it in surely you’ve got to show something coming out. … I said you’ve got to show that you’re working it. … Don’t you think we should go and buy something at an auction. .. and then sell it back… you’re a consultant on antiques and jewellery, everything. .. You can’t keep putting money in an account. You’ve got to take some out and show its working.” 71.Ruth Adams did not accept the construction put upon this passage, namely her knowledge of and involvement in her husband’s affairs, but she did not dispute the factual content of the recording. The person with whom she is having the discussion was Solly Nahome, the financial advisor to Terence Adams during the period of the money laundering offences. I regard that particular extract as telling and consistent with the view which I formed of Ruth Adams. Having noted her involvement in the handling of her husband’s affairs in respect of the FRO, the subsequent setting up by her of two companies, having read her written evidence and listened to her oral evidence my assessment of Ruth Adams is that she is a shrewd woman, able to conduct financial matters which, in fact, are those of herself and her husband. Even upon their own evidence, the financial affairs of Terence and Ruth Adams are intertwined. Theirs is a lengthy relationship, Ruth Adams has played her own part in it.72.It was the Court of Appeal in R v. Adams above who noted that the applicant had ceased his criminality in or about 1993 but had: “clearly amassed a considerable fortune by the time of the end of his criminal activity and it was expended on a lavish lifestyle which involved, … significant numbers of first class flights to different destinations around the world, expensive jewellery, private education for his child and the acquisition of antiques, works of art and other property.” The lifestyle was enjoyed by Terence and Ruth Adams, and I believe, is one which neither is inclined to lose. The difficulty is that Terence Adams is subject to a Confiscation Order which means that any substantial sums in his possession are liable to be taken to pay it. He is also subject to the stringent reporting conditions of the FRO. It is to overcome these restrictions that the Crown contend that a variety of means are used by Terence and Ruth Adams to avail themselves of money from a hidden reserve of funds.Loans and Investments73.On the evidence the following loans received by Ruth Adams are said to have been made:•Carmel Tonna, brother of Ruth Adams, loans of £1000 during 2007 and £3000, August 2007•Josephine Tonna, mother of Ruth Adams, loan of £3000 June 2012•Brian Higgins, uncle of Terence Adams, loan of £30,000, January 2008. A second loan of £10,000 approximately 2 years ago.•Sue Evans, wife of Terence Adams’s cousin, loan of £10,000, January 2013 •Dale Golder, loan of £35,000, May 2013•Loan of £20,000 from an unnamed friend of Ruth Adams in 2014.The loans by the brother of Ruth Adams and the loan of £30,000 by Brian Higgins have been repaid. No documents are before the court showing the origin of the funds. Josephine Tonna74.The immediate source of the £3000 was an ISA savings account, prior to the withdrawal it had a balance of £3974. On the same day that the £3000 was withdrawn the balance of £974.58 was also withdrawn leaving a zero balance. The account was closed some months later with no further transactions. There is no evidence of the source of the £3000 or how Mrs Tonna, a lady in her 80’s, could afford to lend it. No information was before the court as to the financial position of Mrs Tonna. It was Ruth Adams’s case that she required the money for living expenses. Six days after the loan was made, Ruth Adams spent £537 upon a designer dress at Harvey Nichols. It is the Crown’s case that it is not credible that a woman would borrow £3000 without any explanation of how her mother could afford it, continue to engage in luxury spending and still at the date of the hearing owe £3000. The implication is that Mrs Tonna had been repaid or was provided with the £3000 in order to give it to Ruth Adams. In my view there is force in this contention. Brian Higgins £10,00075.Brian Higgins is the uncle of Terence Adams, the loan has not been repaid. No documents were produced in respect of this loan, there is no evidence of its source. Mr Higgins’s family relationship is with Terence Adams. It was the evidence of Brian Higgins and Terence Adams that the applicant was not involved in and that they have never discussed the loan. Given the relationship between the two men I have considerable difficulty accepting this evidence.Sue Evans £10,00076.Sue Evans is related to Terence Adams through her husband who is his cousin. Sue Evans described herself as a “housewife” and said that the money for the loan came from her husband. It was her evidence that Terence Adams and her husband were not involved in any part of this process, the loan has not been repaid. This is said by the Crown to be a transparent example of the strategy of Terence and Ruth Adams namely that the family relationship is between Terence Adams and Sue Evans’s husband, it is Sue Evans’s husband who provides the money yet Terence Adams is not involved and the husband does not give evidence. Once again there is no evidence as to the source of the funds. It is not disputed that Sue Evans may well be telling the truth in that she is responsible for the transfer of money which came from her husband’s bank account. The question which is not satisfactorily dealt with is how her husband originally sourced the money. Further, I have real difficulty accepting that Terence Adams and Sue Evans’s husband would have had no involvement in the transfer of these monies, given the family relationship and the fact that the monies came from Sue Evans’s husband. Dale Golder £35,000 77.These monies were said to be an investment in N1 Angel Limited, in fact £10,000 was used by Ruth Adams for living expenses. The loan was made on 28 May 2013.The loan agreement was not drawn up until August 2013. On 9 July 2013 there was a directions hearing before Nicol J at which Terence Adams was ordered to file his evidence by 7 August 2013. The Crown contend that the two matters are linked. Mr Lakhanpaul was satisfied that a solicitor had been involved and was responsible for drafting the agreement. Dale Golder’s evidence was that a two month delay in producing such a document is not unusual. The position of Dale Golder is illustrative of another aspect of this case namely the inter relationship between individuals who are included in financial transactions with Ruth Adams. One of Dale Golder’s car hire customers is Michael Ellis a man he has known for some years. Michael Ellis is one of the principals of Sterling Wholesale Limited which works with Ruth Adams in respect of N1 Angel. 78.In his first witness statement to the court Dale Golder described himself as working in the field of “building and renovation”. It was only as a result of the investigative work of the police that the existence of JTD Sports Cars was identified and its connection with convicted criminals was discovered. It was following disclosure of this information in the first witness statement of Mr Lakhanpaul that Dale Golder made a second statement identifying his involvement in JTD Sports Cars and denying any involvement in any criminal activities, evidence which he repeated in court. 79.There are no documents before the court evidencing the source of Dale Golder’s funds which provided the basis of the loan. No business documentation relating to the operation of N1 Angel including any projections of sales was provided by Ruth Adams to Dale Golder prior to the loan being made. £35,000 is a significant sum. Dale Golder, on his own account, is a businessman. It is difficult to understand how such a sum is lent in the absence of any documentation from the company relating to its business and its forecasts. Within a short time of monies being transferred Ruth Adams appropriated £10,000 for living expenses. At its lowest, these matters raise a real question as to whether the £35,000 was intended as a genuine investment in N1 Angel.Unnamed friend £20,00080.Ruth Adams refused to disclose the name of the friend who had provided this loan as she said she did not have permission to disclose the friend’s name. The application for these proceedings was made two years ago. Ruth Adams has been involved in the preparation of evidence for this hearing. She knew that she was being required to explain the source of loans. It is surprising that she did not ask her friend for permission to disclose her name. Rent paid by Ian Haart £24,500.00 81.No documents have been produced to verify the arrangement whereby Mr Haart continued to pay rental of £1,750 on the flat where Ruth Adams, and Terence Adams upon his release from prison, lived. Ruth Adams was living in the flat when she had available to her share of the proceeds of sale of Fallowfield. Ian Haart has provided no evidence. In these proceedings it was said that he had disappeared to America in unexplained circumstances. The effect of the payment of a not inconsiderate sum by way of rent was to enable Ruth and Terence Adams to have money available for spending. The absence of any documentation relating to this arrangement and the absence of evidence from Mr Haart does raise a question as to the legitimacy of these payments and their source. Companies or businesses in which Terence or Ruth Adams are or have been involved.Universal Imports82.Terence Adams received £14,650 net from the company, the issue is whether this employment was genuine. Terence Adams has no qualifications or training in jewellery design. It was his evidence that he has always enjoyed this work and did it before working for Universal Imports. He produced drawings of his designs which he said were derived from jewellery magazines which he would tweak. No disrespect is intended but the drawings are somewhat crude and lack any fine detail as would be expected in such design work. Terence Adams’s introduction to Moshe Tobi was through a relative of Solly Nahome. The purpose of his employment was to design jewellery yet he provided no drawings or designs for Mr Tobi to see before the employment commenced. It emerged that the jewellery he designed was too expensive for the company, no design of his was ever sold by the company. It is difficult to accept that a man who possesses no design training or qualifications, is employed and paid for hitherto unseen design work which is then deemed too expensive for the company to produce, is in fact engaged in legitimate employment by the company. The fact that Terence Adams was introduced to the company through a relative of his former financial advisor is an example of the interconnection between associates of Terence Adams. Ruth Adams Interior Design.83.This is the name of the business on the invoice produced by Ruth Adams to evidence the total monies, £16,630 paid to her for her work as an interior designer on a project for Dale Golder. The circumstances in which this work arose bear some examination. Save for an online course which she did not complete, Ruth Adams has no training in interior design nor any professional experience. The reason given by Ruth Adams and Dale Golder for him being willing to employ her was because he had seen her own home and he liked what she had done. Ruth Adams is a close friend of Dale Golder’s wife. No fee was negotiated for the work, Dale Golder identified a sum and Ruth Adams agreed to it. The only document produced to evidence this business arrangement is the ‘invoice’ provided by Ruth Adams. Dale Golder provided no evidence from the Montana company accounts to identify the source of the payment. The employment of an individual with no proven design experience or training, no negotiated rates for payment, only one document to evidence payment and none from the company employing her does not provide the strongest of evidential bases for stating that the sums paid to Ruth Adams emanated from Montana and represent professional work done by her.N1 Angel Limited84.This company has made no profit and is in debt to Sterling Wholesale Limited owned by the Ellis family for £52,000. Terence Adams who has no training in design, is its chief designer and only employee. The design work by Terence Adams is done in the office of Michael Ellis where he will tweak designs or drawings created by others. No documentation was produced, in the form of draft accounts, management accounts, invoices, correspondence with purchasers or purchase orders to evidence the work of this company. The only identified client is Dale Golder who paid £800 for some jumpers which he sold to his employees. The bank account identifies a total of £2000 received by the company. N1 Angel designs provided the means for Dale Golder to transfer £35000 to Ruth Adams in May 2013, Ruth Adams then transferred £10000 from that sum to her own account to pay Terence Adams and meet living expenses. Stara Stara Limited85.The company was incorporated on 2 January 2013. The only evidence of any activity is a trip by Ruth Adams and her daughter to China when they spent in excess of £4000 which included flights. There are no documents evidencing the purchase of stock or any other business activity. On Ruth Adams’s own evidence Stara Stara has generated no income in the 19 months since its incorporation. There is no evidence of any effort to do so. 86.The two companies set up by Ruth Adams have done little by way of business but have provided a means of attracting investment or provide a vehicle for personal expenditure. It is impossible to look at either of these companies in isolation. When viewed in the context of the history of the entire matter, in particular the previous creation of companies in order to provide a seemingly legitimate form of income for Terence Adams, I am not satisfied that either company represents a wholly legitimate endeavour to sell clothes or jewellery.Cash87.Ruth Adams is making extended use of cash to purchase goods and services. The purchase of a watch in March 2010, membership of the Grove Spa, June 2010, dental treatment July 10 to January 2011, storage March 2011 to September 2013, the weight loss programme in the Autumn of 2013 all represent payments which include a substantial cash element. Ruth Adams’s share of the Fallowfield money was exhausted by January 2012. Much of the expenditure took place before January 2012, at a time when Ruth Adams had funds available in her bank accounts to meet these payments. No good answer has been given as to why substantial sums of cash were used. Mr Lakhanpaul was only able to find out about the use of cash because of his examination of the bank statements of Ruth Adams. If purchases have been made wholly in cash they are incapable of discovery.88.When Fallowfield was searched by the police £58,500 was found in cash in the loft. It is clear that the use of cash, and substantial amounts of cash, is a part of the lifestyle of Terence and Ruth Adams. Both were aware of the restrictions imposed by the Confiscation Order and the FRO. The effect of cash expenditure is to minimise the appearance of spending. Any payments made wholly in cash leave no evidential trail. In my view, the use of cash as a means of payment does indicate the existence of an unidentified cash reserve which is available to Terence and Ruth Adams. The lifestyle of Terence and Ruth Adams.89.By January 2012 Ruth Adams’s share of the proceeds of sale of Fallowfield was exhausted. Save for some limited income obtained by Ruth Adams from acting, Terence and Ruth Adams had no income. It is against that background that their spending falls to be scrutinised. What it reflects, whether it is restaurants, the spa at the Grove Hotel, designer clothes, costly dental treatment, the opera or the theatre is a liking for the more expensive items in life. It was the evidence of Terence Adams that their expenditure amounted to £200 a week plus rent. The bank statements identify no expenditure on utility bills and cannot include the items of cash expenditure. The broader evidence of expenditure is inconsistent with the evidence of Terence Adams as to their weekly expenditure. Even allowing for ‘loans’ from family or friends the nature of the spending points to the fact that there is a reserve of funds which can be and is utilised by Terence and Ruth Adams. If the reserve of funds was that of Ruth Adams she has no reason to hide it as it cannot be used to satisfy the Confiscation Order.Broking Limited90.A curious feature of this case has been the investment made by Ruth Adams on 13 September 2011 of £60,000 in Broking Limited. Broking Limited appears to have done nothing as a business, it has made no sales nor money. For reasons which Mr King was wholly unable to explain, the debt to Ruth Adams was not shown in the company’s account. The investment made by Ruth Adams was at a time when she was coming to the end of her share of the proceeds of sale of Fallowfield. In September 2011, £90,000 was in her account, the investment left her with just £30,000. If it was the case that Ruth Adams wished to make a good investment she seems to have done remarkably little by way of research or proper enquiry as to what the likelihood of returns on her investment into Broking Limited would produce. This is a financial transaction which raises questions as to its purpose to which no good answers have been given. 91.The spending in which Terence and Ruth Adams are engaged is inconsistent with their claim of having no assets and being reliant on friends and family for loans for living expenses. On their account they have lived in increasingly straightened circumstances with one rapidly diminishing and now extinguished cash asset and no apparent form of income. I do not accept that these two people would behave in the manner identified by the expenditure or make substantial cash payments unless there was another source of funding. The pattern of behaviour demonstrated by Terence and Ruth Adams is consistent with the original case against Terence Adams namely of concealing his assets through associates and using companies to provide an apparent form of legitimate income.92.I am not satisfied that Terence Adams has provided full and candid disclosure to the court as to the assets held in July 2014 which fund his life and that of his wife. I believe that there are financial matters known peculiarly to Terence Adams which are not before the Court. Upon the evidence presented to the Court on behalf of the applicant I am not satisfied that the current assets of Terence Adams are worth less than the outstanding balance of the Confiscation Order. Accordingly this application is refused.