One of London’s most notorious former crime bosses has paid back almost three quarters of a million pounds in ill gotten gains, after being warned he would go back to prison if he failed to pay.
Terry Adams was hit with the bill under a confiscation order, after he was convicted for money laundering in 2007.
But the 63-year-old claimed he was too poor to pay, despite the courts being told he lived a lavish lifestyle, enjoying nights out at the Dorchester Hotel and the Royal Opera House.
The alleged former gangster, also argued that it would be against his human rights if he were forced to pay back the debt – which had risen to over £1 million with interest.
But despite claiming he had no money left, Adams came up with the full amount after being warned that he faced another two and a half years behind bars if he did not cough up.
Will we be seeing one of those rental cars of a recent divorcee heading back to the showroom?
The precedent could have merit.
I want to see May’s pension confiscated but the bitch being forced to pay back every penny or be jailed in say 5 years time would do as well. The rest of the HoC Remainiac scum as well. And Bliar, Bottler, Madelscum, Leninslime, Sad-Dick Khan, ……the potential is there.
Maybe I’m not interpreting the article correctly here but it took ten years to squeeze this money out of him? Our courts are a (leisurely-paced) joke then.
I’ve remarked on here before that I don’t understand how the whole Stunt thing works. Have to say that the Adams thing is a mystery too. If we all ‘know’ he is a major crook, how on earth do he and his associates manage to sustain the lifestyle? Are the police not watching too hard, or is he really more of a retired criminal with a PR reputation?
Knowledge and evidence are very different things.
@Oblong
There is an extensive popular literature about London gangland figures in which people seem quite happy to say X, Y and Z are crooks with no fear of libel (the list of their criminal convictions presumably being safe enough grounds) and yet X, Y and Z continue to live the life of the nouveau riche, in some cases quite publicly flaunting it. Earnings as legitimate businessmen now they’ve gone straight, I’m sure.
-Claimed he was too poor to pay
-Has paid the money
Original claim doesn’t stack up: can the lawyer who made that claim on his behalf be prosecuted for lying. Just wondering.
Reading the first sentence of the quoted passage, it would be easy to think it was about Blair. Until you get to the bit about prison. Unfortunately the courts seem reluctant to jail the most hardened & blatent criminals.
Ok, Bongo, I’ll bite: it’s complicated and i don’t have time to go into the details. But if you’re prepared to assume that the lawyer complies with his professional duty not to mislead the court, and if you can understand that it is for the court to determine whether the client is lying, then you may grasp that it is entirely possible that the lawyer did his job of putting forward is client’s case and that the court (however slowly) did its job of deciding that his client’s case was a load of old moody.
Another way of putting it is that it does not matter what is the lawyer’s private and personal view of the merits of his client’s case (a view which may well have been tactfully expressed to that client), provided the lawyer does not actually know that his client is lying to him.
So, for example, “So you’re my brief, then? Well, I’m as guilty as sin, but I’m pleading not guilty”. “Splendid, Mr Crook”, is verboten. Instead, the brief is required to say, “Well, Mr Crook, since i am not allowed to mislead the court, I can represent you only on a guilty plea”. Whereupon he is sacked and replaced and Mr Crook tells the replacement brief that he is pleading not guilty because he is not guilty.
Edward Lud: pull the other one, it has bells on.
Well, it was worf a try, wonnit. Wun born ev’ry minute, inthere? Cummon, guv, yer can’t blame a bloke for trying to earn a sov.
I suppose it would be worth the while of a bigger fish to kidnap a twat like this and torture him until he handed over everything.
Does that sort of thing happen often? Would we know if it did?
Maybe there would be no need to kidnap him. Just start bumping off his grandchildren, something like that.
The billionaires on the other side of the road are paranoid about this (village gossip). Coincidentally, the bloke next door used to do a lot of kidnap negotiations, but mostly in S. America.