Barry Stancombe

Barry Stancombe

Call 1983
Email barry.stancombe@3pb.co.uk
Download PDF version

Corporate Recovery

Barry Stancombe has been involved in proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture work from the inception of this speciality. His main contribution to the Proceeds of Crime Unit is in the following areas; confiscation proceedings; advising on injunctions, contempt proceedings and Receiverships (he acts on behalf of Management and Enforcement Receivers). The ARA, SFO and RCPO instruct him.

Barry Stancombe is recommended in Band One of the POCA and Asset Forfeiture Juniors section in Chambers and Partners 2011 Directory.

‘Barry is recognised as "a leading player" in the world of asset recovery. His "no-nonsense, very sensible, very pugnacious" advocacy style is widely seen as a welcome breath of fresh air in long-running, highly complex asset forfeiture proceedings.’

He appeared for the SFO in the recent decision of SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc. The Court of Appeal accepted the SFO's submissions that the forfeiture regime is more stringent under the Proceeds of Crime Act compared with the Criminal Justice Act. Section 69(2)(c) of POCA requires the relevant powers to be exercised without taking account of any obligation of the defendant if that obligation conflicts with the object of satisfying any confiscation that has been or may be made. See SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc (In administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443.

Prosecution

He has acted for RCPO (ETF), in a variety of cases in the Administrative Court. For example, on behalf of the RCPO he led Rupert Jones (3PB) on the following substantive applications:

  • Application to appoint an Enforcement Receiver; Re H & J [2005] EWHC 1297 (Admin)
  • Resisting a defendant’s application for a Certificate of Inadequacy under the DTA: Re T [2006] EWHC 2233 (Admin). The Defendant's appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on 21st December 2007 [2007] EWCA Civ 1385.

Barry Stancombe also receives instructions from the SFO. He has been instructed by the AFU and the CPS.

Receivers

He is regularly instructed on behalf of Court appointed Management and Enforcement Receivers and Interim Receivers under POCA. His work covers all areas such as; advising on the recovery/management/sale of restrained assets; the recovery of costs; contempt proceedings; interim applications; and applications to manage and/or dispose of restrained assets. In the case of Re J [2006] EWCH 3382 (Admin), 30th November 2006, Mr. Stancombe acted for the Court appointed Receiver in obtaining an order for a declaration as to the defendant’s beneficial interest in a substantial property. His most recent reported case is RCPO v Briggs-Price EWCA (Civ) 14th June 2007 in the Court of Appeal.

Contempt

His commercial practice has provided in-depth experience of interim injunction applications and contempt proceedings. Instructions concerning all aspects of injunctions/contempt work are received. The following are examples of contempt cases in which Mr. Stancombe has acted:

  • Deborah Buildings v Scaffco Limited TLR (1987) – reported case involving breach of a mareva injunction, disposal of assets – requisite standard of proof
  • Acting for HM Inland Revenue to enforce breaches of a Restraint Order by way of contempt proceedings
  • Acting for a Receiver in contempt proceedings against a defendant for breach of a Restraint Order
  • Acting for the SFO in contempt proceedings against a defendant for breach of a Restraint Order

Defence

For many years Mr. Stancombe has acted in substantial confiscation proceedings for defendants. He is currently involved in fishing industry cases where the ARA is seeking substantial confiscation orders.

He regularly advises solicitors on POCA issues (money laundering, in particular). He advises defendants on POCA matters and recently represented a defendant in Bristol Crown Court on a cigarette importation case, where the prosecution sought a confiscation order in the sum of c. £1 million – the POCA order granted was in the sum of c. £15,000.

In respect of civil claims, he also regularly acts for Third Parties asserting rights in restrained property in the High Court.