WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.459 Imagine a judge looking you dead in the eye and 00:00:02.459 --> 00:00:05.160 saying, we have enough evidence to prosecute 00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:07.259 you for this crime, but we've decided we aren't 00:00:07.259 --> 00:00:11.039 going to. Which, you know, sounds great at first. 00:00:11.279 --> 00:00:13.679 Right. You might feel this massive wave of relief, 00:00:13.820 --> 00:00:15.300 right? You'd think you're totally off the hook. 00:00:15.500 --> 00:00:18.600 But you're really, really not. Exactly. Because 00:00:18.600 --> 00:00:21.660 then the judge says, however, you are not innocent. 00:00:21.980 --> 00:00:24.420 We aren't clearing your name. This charge is 00:00:24.420 --> 00:00:27.000 just going to hover over you indefinitely. Oh, 00:00:27.019 --> 00:00:28.839 and by the way, we might still use it to seize 00:00:28.839 --> 00:00:31.539 your money years from now. Yeah, it's a scenario 00:00:31.539 --> 00:00:35.520 that sounds completely absurd. It's like a glitch 00:00:35.520 --> 00:00:37.899 in the matrix of the justice system, but it actually 00:00:37.899 --> 00:00:40.979 happens. It totally does. And welcome to today's 00:00:40.979 --> 00:00:43.340 Deep Dive, where we are exploring this bizarre, 00:00:43.560 --> 00:00:46.799 highly consequential legal limbo. It's hidden 00:00:46.799 --> 00:00:49.520 right inside the criminal law of England and 00:00:49.520 --> 00:00:52.060 Wales. It's this administrative maneuver called 00:00:52.060 --> 00:00:54.880 letting a charge lie on file. Or sometimes they 00:00:54.880 --> 00:00:56.759 just say a charge on file. And let me tell you, 00:00:56.759 --> 00:00:58.780 it is going to challenge every single assumption 00:00:58.780 --> 00:01:01.700 you have about how justice is actually supposed 00:01:01.700 --> 00:01:04.329 to work. Oh, absolutely. Because, I mean, we 00:01:04.329 --> 00:01:08.109 are all raised on this very binary concept of 00:01:08.109 --> 00:01:10.049 the law, right? Right. The whole guilty or not 00:01:10.049 --> 00:01:12.469 guilty thing. Exactly. You go to court, a jury 00:01:12.469 --> 00:01:14.650 hears the evidence, and you're either guilty 00:01:14.650 --> 00:01:18.109 or you're not. But a charge lying on file, it 00:01:18.109 --> 00:01:21.049 completely shatters that binary. So to help us 00:01:21.049 --> 00:01:23.549 navigate this whole mess, we are pulling from 00:01:23.549 --> 00:01:26.129 a really fascinating stack of legal materials 00:01:26.129 --> 00:01:28.290 today. We've got the foundational definitions 00:01:28.290 --> 00:01:32.390 from Wikipedia and the law pages, which kind 00:01:32.390 --> 00:01:35.069 of map out the strict procedural rules of how 00:01:35.069 --> 00:01:36.829 this practice actually works. Yeah. And we're 00:01:36.829 --> 00:01:38.989 also digging deep into some critical analysis 00:01:38.989 --> 00:01:42.329 by the legal commentator David Winch, specifically 00:01:42.329 --> 00:01:45.640 his work, Accounting Evidence, which really the 00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:48.000 financial and, well, the ethical consequences 00:01:48.000 --> 00:01:50.379 of this whole legal shortcut. And shortcut is 00:01:50.379 --> 00:01:52.180 probably the most accurate word you could use 00:01:52.180 --> 00:01:54.879 for it. Though, as we'll see, shortcuts in the 00:01:54.879 --> 00:01:56.819 legal system often come with some pretty heavy 00:01:56.819 --> 00:01:59.640 hidden tolls. Okay, so let's unpack the actual 00:01:59.640 --> 00:02:02.000 mechanics of this first. Because before we get 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:04.560 to the outrage and the financial stuff, we really 00:02:04.560 --> 00:02:06.700 need to understand what this looks like physically 00:02:06.700 --> 00:02:09.060 in a courtroom. Right, like how does a charge 00:02:09.060 --> 00:02:11.340 end up just, you know, sitting in a drawer somewhere? 00:02:11.659 --> 00:02:15.139 Exactly. Walk us through it. Well... For a charge 00:02:15.139 --> 00:02:19.259 to officially lie on file, two very specific, 00:02:19.319 --> 00:02:22.599 very distinct hurdles have to be cleared by the 00:02:22.599 --> 00:02:24.259 presiding judge. Okay, what's the first one? 00:02:24.740 --> 00:02:27.479 The first hurdle is all about the actual weight 00:02:27.479 --> 00:02:30.719 of the accusation. So the judge has to look at 00:02:30.719 --> 00:02:34.379 the prosecution's case and officially agree that 00:02:34.379 --> 00:02:36.620 there is enough evidence for a case to be made. 00:02:36.939 --> 00:02:39.379 So just to be clear for everyone listening, the 00:02:39.379 --> 00:02:41.719 judge is acting as a filter here. Yeah, exactly. 00:02:41.879 --> 00:02:43.599 They're looking at the police reports, the witness 00:02:43.599 --> 00:02:46.840 statements, the forensics, and saying, yes, the 00:02:46.840 --> 00:02:49.120 prosecution actually has the receipts. Like, 00:02:49.280 --> 00:02:51.800 if we put this in front of a jury, it's a completely 00:02:51.800 --> 00:02:54.479 viable case. Right. And that's important because 00:02:54.479 --> 00:02:57.319 it prevents prosecutors from just putting completely 00:02:57.319 --> 00:03:01.219 baseless, frivolous charges on file just to intimidate 00:03:01.219 --> 00:03:02.879 someone. Oh, that makes sense. So they can't 00:03:02.879 --> 00:03:05.240 just make stuff up. Exactly. The evidentiary 00:03:05.240 --> 00:03:07.300 threshold has to be met, and the judge actually 00:03:07.300 --> 00:03:10.580 has to acknowledge it on the record. But it's 00:03:10.580 --> 00:03:13.000 the second hurdle where things get a bit messy. 00:03:13.419 --> 00:03:15.680 Right, because if they have the evidence, my 00:03:15.680 --> 00:03:18.240 immediate thought is run the trial. I mean, that 00:03:18.240 --> 00:03:20.520 is literally what the system is built for. You 00:03:20.520 --> 00:03:23.219 would assume so, yeah. But the second hurdle... 00:03:23.259 --> 00:03:26.900 requires the judge to decide that it is not in 00:03:26.900 --> 00:03:29.259 the public interest for the prosecution to actually 00:03:29.259 --> 00:03:31.080 proceed with that trial. OK, and this is where 00:03:31.080 --> 00:03:33.699 I need to stop you. Because that phrase, not 00:03:33.699 --> 00:03:36.379 in the public interest, it sounds so incredibly 00:03:36.379 --> 00:03:38.759 noble. It does, yeah. It sounds like they are 00:03:38.759 --> 00:03:41.580 protecting society from something. But when you 00:03:41.580 --> 00:03:44.539 dig into the legal texts, what does public interest 00:03:44.539 --> 00:03:47.520 actually mean in this specific context? Well, 00:03:47.620 --> 00:03:50.520 in the vast majority of these cases, public interest 00:03:50.520 --> 00:03:54.199 is basically just polite legal phrasing for triage 00:03:54.199 --> 00:03:57.219 and budget management. Wow, really? Yeah. The 00:03:57.219 --> 00:03:59.520 sources show that a charge usually lies on file 00:03:59.520 --> 00:04:02.139 because the defendant has already admitted to 00:04:02.139 --> 00:04:06.099 or been convicted of other charges. And crucially, 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:09.759 those other charges are almost always much more 00:04:09.759 --> 00:04:11.560 serious. OK, I want to make sure we lock this 00:04:11.560 --> 00:04:13.139 concept in for you listening. So let's build 00:04:13.139 --> 00:04:16.060 a scenario. OK, let's hear it. Let's say a guy 00:04:16.060 --> 00:04:19.480 is arrested for a massive multi -million pound 00:04:19.480 --> 00:04:22.560 bank heist. He was literally caught red -handed 00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:25.540 inside the vault. Got it. But on the way to the 00:04:25.540 --> 00:04:27.680 bank he also stole a bicycle just to get down 00:04:27.680 --> 00:04:30.230 the street faster. A very pragmatic Criminal, 00:04:30.470 --> 00:04:33.269 I guess. Right. So he's facing, say, 20 years 00:04:33.269 --> 00:04:35.990 in prison for the armed bank robbery. And the 00:04:35.990 --> 00:04:38.629 prosecution also has him on camera stealing the 00:04:38.629 --> 00:04:41.350 bicycle. So they have the evidence that clears 00:04:41.350 --> 00:04:44.230 the first hurdle. Exactly. But the judge looks 00:04:44.230 --> 00:04:46.509 at the docket and says, look, we are already 00:04:46.509 --> 00:04:48.910 sending this guy away for two decades for the 00:04:48.910 --> 00:04:51.110 bank heist. Are we really going to spend another 00:04:51.110 --> 00:04:54.250 three days of court time, impanel a whole new 00:04:54.250 --> 00:04:57.310 jury and spend thousands of pounds of taxpayer 00:04:57.310 --> 00:04:59.800 money to officially convict him of stealing a 00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:02.180 200 pound bicycle. And the answer from the court 00:05:02.180 --> 00:05:05.120 is predictably no. Right. I mean, the practical 00:05:05.120 --> 00:05:07.199 utility of securing that minor conviction is 00:05:07.199 --> 00:05:10.160 zero. The system has already achieved the necessary 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:12.540 level of punishment and public protection with 00:05:12.540 --> 00:05:15.180 the bank robbery conviction. So the bicycle theft 00:05:15.180 --> 00:05:18.420 charge is just allowed to lie on file. Exactly. 00:05:18.519 --> 00:05:20.079 They basically just take the file and put it 00:05:20.079 --> 00:05:23.279 in a drawer. But here is the massive caveat that 00:05:23.279 --> 00:05:26.079 makes this entire practice so bizarre to me. 00:05:26.660 --> 00:05:30.350 What is the defendant's actual official status 00:05:30.350 --> 00:05:33.610 regarding that bicycle theft. Yeah, this is the 00:05:33.610 --> 00:05:35.769 part that really breaks people's brains. The 00:05:35.769 --> 00:05:39.550 defendant makes absolutely no admission to the 00:05:39.550 --> 00:05:41.829 charge lying on file. They do not plead guilty. 00:05:41.949 --> 00:05:43.750 And the court doesn't declare them guilty either. 00:05:43.930 --> 00:05:46.569 I know. There is absolutely no verdict recorded 00:05:46.569 --> 00:05:48.970 against them. That is wild. You're just completely 00:05:48.970 --> 00:05:51.089 suspended in this gray area. You aren't officially 00:05:51.089 --> 00:05:53.329 guilty, but because the trial was bypassed, you 00:05:53.329 --> 00:05:55.149 were never given the opportunity to prove yourself 00:05:55.149 --> 00:05:58.139 innocent either. You just exist in this state 00:05:58.139 --> 00:06:01.819 of perpetual legal purgatory. That's a great 00:06:01.819 --> 00:06:04.319 way to put it, yeah. So if the state is bypassing 00:06:04.319 --> 00:06:07.180 the trial just to save time and money, I have 00:06:07.180 --> 00:06:09.120 to assume this isn't just a permanent get out 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:11.439 of jail free card. Like if they put the file 00:06:11.439 --> 00:06:13.759 in a drawer, there must be a way to open that 00:06:13.759 --> 00:06:15.980 drawer again later, right? A drawer can absolutely 00:06:15.980 --> 00:06:18.759 be open. A charge lying on file is not dismissed. 00:06:18.899 --> 00:06:21.379 It's not erased. It remains active just in a 00:06:21.379 --> 00:06:24.100 dormant state. And it can be reinstated and brought 00:06:24.100 --> 00:06:26.620 to trial at a later date. I mean, put yourself 00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:28.920 in that position for a second. The psychological 00:06:28.920 --> 00:06:31.699 weight of that is staggering. It really is. You 00:06:31.699 --> 00:06:34.199 have a judge who has gone on the official record 00:06:34.199 --> 00:06:36.660 saying, there is enough evidence to convict you 00:06:36.660 --> 00:06:38.939 of this. And instead of letting you fight it 00:06:38.939 --> 00:06:41.379 and clear your name, they just suspend it over 00:06:41.379 --> 00:06:44.720 your head indefinitely. It's an incredible amount 00:06:44.720 --> 00:06:47.360 of leverage for the state to hold over a citizen. 00:06:47.899 --> 00:06:51.279 which is exactly why there are strict procedural 00:06:51.279 --> 00:06:53.740 safeguards in place. It's not just a free -for 00:06:53.740 --> 00:06:56.180 -all. So a random prosecutor who happens to be 00:06:56.180 --> 00:06:59.000 having a bad day can't just, like, walk into 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:00.959 the archives, pull your file out of the drawer, 00:07:01.060 --> 00:07:02.519 and drag you back to court because they feel 00:07:02.519 --> 00:07:05.220 like it? No, they cannot. The procedural hurdle 00:07:05.220 --> 00:07:08.220 here is actually quite high. To reinstate a charge 00:07:08.220 --> 00:07:10.639 that has been lying on file, the prosecution 00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:13.959 must get the explicit official permission of 00:07:13.959 --> 00:07:16.319 either the original trial judge or the court 00:07:16.319 --> 00:07:18.300 of appeal. Okay, so they have to go back to the 00:07:18.300 --> 00:07:20.220 judiciary and essentially ask for the keys to 00:07:20.220 --> 00:07:23.019 the drawer. Exactly. They have to prove that 00:07:23.019 --> 00:07:25.980 circumstances have changed so dramatically that 00:07:25.980 --> 00:07:28.259 it is now suddenly in the public interest to 00:07:28.259 --> 00:07:30.819 spend the money and time to prosecute this old 00:07:30.819 --> 00:07:33.240 charge. OK, that's a pretty fundamental check 00:07:33.240 --> 00:07:35.860 and balance. It is. It keeps the ultimate power 00:07:35.860 --> 00:07:38.279 to revive the case entirely in the hands of the 00:07:38.279 --> 00:07:41.560 judges, not the police or the prosecutors. So 00:07:41.560 --> 00:07:43.800 it prevents the state from using these dormant 00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:47.579 charges as a constant arbitrary threat to harass 00:07:47.579 --> 00:07:49.240 people. I mean, that does make me feel slightly 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:51.420 better. There is a heavy institutional lock on 00:07:51.420 --> 00:07:54.019 that door. Yeah, definitely. But as we transition 00:07:54.019 --> 00:07:56.740 to the second half of our deep dive here, we 00:07:56.740 --> 00:07:59.019 are about to discover that while the criminal 00:07:59.019 --> 00:08:01.519 trial might be locked behind a heavy door, there 00:08:01.519 --> 00:08:04.019 is a back door. Oh, very lucrative back door. 00:08:04.180 --> 00:08:06.879 Yes. And it is a back door that the state can 00:08:06.879 --> 00:08:09.420 use to walk right into your bank account. We're 00:08:09.420 --> 00:08:11.800 basically moving from the theoretical philosophy 00:08:11.800 --> 00:08:15.399 of the law into the very tangible, very aggressive 00:08:15.399 --> 00:08:17.980 world of asset confiscation. And this is where 00:08:17.980 --> 00:08:20.420 we really have to introduce a massive piece of 00:08:20.420 --> 00:08:22.740 legislation. It's called the Proceeds of Crime 00:08:22.740 --> 00:08:25.139 Act 2002. Alright. Because when you read the 00:08:25.139 --> 00:08:27.660 documentation, it explicitly states that charges 00:08:27.660 --> 00:08:31.120 laid on file have, on occasion, been taken into 00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:33.940 account in actions under this act to confiscate 00:08:33.940 --> 00:08:37.059 the gains of criminal activity. And this is the 00:08:37.059 --> 00:08:40.340 exact mechanism that legal scholars and civil 00:08:40.340 --> 00:08:43.529 liberties advocates absolutely tear their hair 00:08:43.529 --> 00:08:46.230 out over. I am right there with them because 00:08:46.230 --> 00:08:48.549 let's just trace the logic we just built. We 00:08:48.549 --> 00:08:51.429 establish unequivocally that there is no admission 00:08:51.429 --> 00:08:54.690 of guilt for a charge on file. There is no jury. 00:08:54.870 --> 00:08:57.669 There is no verdict. The defendant is not legally 00:08:57.669 --> 00:09:01.090 guilty of the crime. So how on earth is the state 00:09:01.090 --> 00:09:04.269 legally allowed to seize their money or their 00:09:04.269 --> 00:09:06.529 property for a crime they haven't been convicted 00:09:06.529 --> 00:09:08.789 of? To understand how the state pulls this off, 00:09:08.889 --> 00:09:11.190 we have to look at how different branches of 00:09:11.190 --> 00:09:14.090 the legal system measure the truth. And it all 00:09:14.090 --> 00:09:16.460 comes down to the burden of proof. OK, break 00:09:16.460 --> 00:09:18.299 that down for us. What's the difference in the 00:09:18.299 --> 00:09:20.480 burden of proof here? Well, in a criminal trial, 00:09:21.620 --> 00:09:23.259 you know, where your liberty is at stake, where 00:09:23.259 --> 00:09:25.480 you might actually go to prison, the burden of 00:09:25.480 --> 00:09:27.700 proof is incredibly high. Right. The prosecution 00:09:27.700 --> 00:09:30.460 has to prove you committed the crime beyond a 00:09:30.460 --> 00:09:33.460 reasonable doubt. Let's call that like 99 percent 00:09:33.460 --> 00:09:35.200 certainty. If the jury has a reasonable doubt, 00:09:35.220 --> 00:09:37.700 you go free. Right. That is the main firewall 00:09:37.700 --> 00:09:40.039 of the justice system. It's designed to be hard 00:09:40.039 --> 00:09:43.379 to breach. Exactly. But the Proceeds of Crime 00:09:43.379 --> 00:09:47.230 Act. often operates in the realm of civil recovery. 00:09:47.990 --> 00:09:50.070 They aren't trying to put you in prison. They're 00:09:50.070 --> 00:09:52.629 just trying to take your stuff. Okay. And in 00:09:52.629 --> 00:09:55.750 civil proceedings, the burden of proof is much, 00:09:55.850 --> 00:09:59.210 much lower. It's based on the balance of probabilities. 00:10:00.370 --> 00:10:02.629 Meaning they just have to prove it's 51 % likely 00:10:02.629 --> 00:10:05.690 that you did it. It is just more likely than 00:10:05.690 --> 00:10:08.669 not. Precisely. Now, think of a charge lying 00:10:08.669 --> 00:10:12.629 on file like a dormant computer virus. The criminal 00:10:12.629 --> 00:10:15.870 trial with its beyond reasonable doubt standard 00:10:15.870 --> 00:10:18.850 is the main firewall. OK, I follow you. The prosecution 00:10:18.850 --> 00:10:20.990 didn't want to spend the time and money trying 00:10:20.990 --> 00:10:23.370 to hack through that main firewall for a lesser 00:10:23.370 --> 00:10:25.970 charge. So they put the charge on file. They 00:10:25.970 --> 00:10:27.929 just left the virus dormant on the hard drive. 00:10:28.190 --> 00:10:30.470 Exactly. But remember the first hurdle the judge 00:10:30.470 --> 00:10:32.289 had to clear to put it on file in the first place. 00:10:32.409 --> 00:10:34.169 Right. The judge had to officially declare that 00:10:34.169 --> 00:10:36.870 there was enough evidence for a case to be made. 00:10:37.250 --> 00:10:40.690 Yes. And that judicial declaration acts as the 00:10:40.690 --> 00:10:44.100 back door. Years later, the state can initiate 00:10:44.100 --> 00:10:46.860 a civil recovery action under the Proceeds of 00:10:46.860 --> 00:10:49.620 Crime Act to take your assets. And to meet that 00:10:49.620 --> 00:10:53.279 lower 51 % balance of probability standard, they 00:10:53.279 --> 00:10:55.440 simply point to the judge's original note. Oh, 00:10:55.440 --> 00:10:59.259 wow. That is wow. Yeah. They say to the civil 00:10:59.259 --> 00:11:02.139 court, look. We didn't officially convict him 00:11:02.139 --> 00:11:04.019 of stealing the bicycle because we were busy 00:11:04.019 --> 00:11:06.419 with the bank heist, but a criminal judge already 00:11:06.419 --> 00:11:08.019 looked at the evidence and said it was strong 00:11:08.019 --> 00:11:09.919 enough to go to trial. Therefore, it is more 00:11:09.919 --> 00:11:13.139 than 51 % likely he stole the bicycle. So, we 00:11:13.139 --> 00:11:15.820 are taking the bicycle. Or, you know, more accurately, 00:11:16.039 --> 00:11:17.659 taking the money in your bank account that they 00:11:17.659 --> 00:11:20.379 claim came from selling the bicycle. That's insane! 00:11:20.500 --> 00:11:22.659 They bypassed the criminal jury trial entirely, 00:11:23.320 --> 00:11:25.259 but they still reap the financial rewards of 00:11:25.259 --> 00:11:27.990 a conviction. Which brings us directly to the 00:11:27.990 --> 00:11:31.629 core conflict of this deep dive and the incredibly 00:11:31.629 --> 00:11:34.289 sharp critique leveled by legal commentator David 00:11:34.289 --> 00:11:36.629 Winch in his work, Accounting Evidence. Right. 00:11:36.809 --> 00:11:39.149 Winch's argument is laser focused on the ethical 00:11:39.149 --> 00:11:42.169 black hole that this practice creates. He argues 00:11:42.169 --> 00:11:44.830 that using charges laid on file to confiscate 00:11:44.830 --> 00:11:48.049 gains under the Proceeds of Crime Act is a direct, 00:11:48.409 --> 00:11:50.570 undeniable breach of the presumption of innocence. 00:11:50.879 --> 00:11:53.279 And if you grew up in any Western democracy, 00:11:53.779 --> 00:11:55.519 I mean, the presumption of innocence isn't just 00:11:55.519 --> 00:11:58.559 a rule. It is the absolute bedrock of the entire 00:11:58.559 --> 00:12:01.740 system. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent 00:12:01.740 --> 00:12:03.600 until a judge says there's probably enough evidence, 00:12:03.659 --> 00:12:06.620 but we don't feel like proving it. Exactly. Winch 00:12:06.620 --> 00:12:09.159 is pointing out that when the state confiscates 00:12:09.159 --> 00:12:11.600 your property based on a charge with no verdict, 00:12:12.460 --> 00:12:15.179 they're effectively treating you as a guilty 00:12:15.179 --> 00:12:19.049 person. They're enacting a punishment based entirely 00:12:19.049 --> 00:12:22.309 on an accusation and a preliminary assessment 00:12:22.309 --> 00:12:24.730 of evidence. They're completely stripping you 00:12:24.730 --> 00:12:26.470 of your right to defend yourself. You don't get 00:12:26.470 --> 00:12:28.490 to cross -examine the witnesses. Your defense 00:12:28.490 --> 00:12:30.809 attorney doesn't get to poke holes in the forensics. 00:12:30.970 --> 00:12:33.590 No, not that. You are just financially penalized 00:12:33.590 --> 00:12:37.289 by administrative decree. It is a really devastating 00:12:37.289 --> 00:12:41.399 critique, but To really understand why this practice 00:12:41.399 --> 00:12:44.700 survives, we have to look at the collision between 00:12:44.700 --> 00:12:47.480 Winch's civil liberties perspective and the harsh 00:12:47.480 --> 00:12:49.720 realities of the state. We have to look at the 00:12:49.720 --> 00:12:51.899 friction between innocence and efficiency. Let 00:12:51.899 --> 00:12:53.879 me pay devil's advocate for the state here for 00:12:53.879 --> 00:12:56.220 a second. Sure, go for it. Because if I put on 00:12:56.220 --> 00:12:58.700 my prosecutor's hat, I can understand why they 00:12:58.700 --> 00:13:00.700 fight to keep this mechanism alive. Let's go 00:13:00.700 --> 00:13:03.159 back to our bank robber. But let's say it wasn't 00:13:03.159 --> 00:13:05.399 a bicycle he stole. Let's say he was running 00:13:05.399 --> 00:13:08.960 a massive multi -million pound money laundering 00:13:08.960 --> 00:13:11.600 syndicate. OK, a slight escalation from a bicycle. 00:13:11.740 --> 00:13:14.129 Just a bit, yeah. So the police finally catch 00:13:14.129 --> 00:13:16.210 him, but they actually catch him on massive tax 00:13:16.210 --> 00:13:19.509 fraud. The tax fraud case is incredibly strong. 00:13:19.590 --> 00:13:21.850 It's a slam dunk that will put him away for 20 00:13:21.850 --> 00:13:24.590 years. Right. Now, the money laundering case 00:13:24.590 --> 00:13:27.450 is also strong. The judge agrees there is enough 00:13:27.450 --> 00:13:29.389 evidence, but it would take six months in court 00:13:29.389 --> 00:13:32.490 and millions of pounds to litigate. So they just 00:13:32.490 --> 00:13:34.950 put the money laundering charge on file. A classic 00:13:34.950 --> 00:13:37.529 application of judicial efficiency. Makes sense. 00:13:37.750 --> 00:13:41.110 Right. But here's the state's problem. The guy 00:13:41.110 --> 00:13:43.690 has five million pounds sitting in an offshore 00:13:43.690 --> 00:13:45.950 account that they absolutely know came from the 00:13:45.950 --> 00:13:47.690 money laundering. Okay, I see where you're going 00:13:47.690 --> 00:13:50.049 with this. If the state cannot use the Proceeds 00:13:50.049 --> 00:13:52.789 of Crime Act to seize that money based on the 00:13:52.789 --> 00:13:56.029 charge on file, what happens? The guy sits in 00:13:56.029 --> 00:13:58.309 jail for his tax fraud, serves his time, and 00:13:58.309 --> 00:14:01.289 then walks out 20 years later to a five million 00:14:01.289 --> 00:14:04.029 pound retirement fund built entirely on illicit 00:14:04.029 --> 00:14:06.549 money. And from the state's perspective, and 00:14:06.549 --> 00:14:08.950 arguably the public's perspective too, that is 00:14:08.950 --> 00:14:11.669 a massive systemic failure. Exactly. I mean, 00:14:11.750 --> 00:14:13.990 the state's imperative is to ensure that crime 00:14:13.990 --> 00:14:17.330 literally does not pay. They view the Proceeds 00:14:17.330 --> 00:14:21.049 of Crime Act as a vital necessary weapon to dismantle 00:14:21.049 --> 00:14:23.169 the financial infrastructure of criminality. 00:14:23.250 --> 00:14:25.769 Right. If they couldn't leverage charges on file, 00:14:26.370 --> 00:14:28.350 organized criminals might retain their illicit 00:14:28.350 --> 00:14:30.830 wealth purely because of court scheduling conflicts 00:14:30.830 --> 00:14:33.399 and the sheer cost of running a trial. The state 00:14:33.399 --> 00:14:35.919 is essentially saying, look, just because we 00:14:35.919 --> 00:14:38.159 were too busy prosecuting your other crimes to 00:14:38.159 --> 00:14:40.279 give you a trial for this one, that doesn't give 00:14:40.279 --> 00:14:42.919 you a free pass to keep the dirty money. But 00:14:42.919 --> 00:14:45.419 David Winch and the civil liberties advocates, 00:14:45.419 --> 00:14:48.360 they look at that exact same scenario and they 00:14:48.360 --> 00:14:51.259 draw a hard line. They say you are assuming the 00:14:51.259 --> 00:14:53.980 money is dirty without proving it in a criminal 00:14:53.980 --> 00:14:57.059 court. Because having enough evidence to make 00:14:57.059 --> 00:14:59.460 a case is vastly different from having enough 00:14:59.460 --> 00:15:02.519 evidence to win a case beyond a reasonable doubt 00:15:02.519 --> 00:15:04.860 in front of a jury. Yes. I mean, juries acquit 00:15:04.860 --> 00:15:07.000 people with enough evidence all the time. That's 00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:09.039 literally why we have trials. Exactly. Winch's 00:15:09.039 --> 00:15:11.620 position is that if the state wants the five 00:15:11.620 --> 00:15:13.940 million pounds, they need to do the hard work. 00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:16.980 They need to spend the money, impanel the jury, 00:15:17.480 --> 00:15:20.220 run the trial, and actually prove the money laundering 00:15:20.220 --> 00:15:22.820 beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot take shortcuts 00:15:22.820 --> 00:15:24.899 when it comes to fundamental human rights, even 00:15:24.899 --> 00:15:26.899 if the shortcut is really, really efficient. 00:15:27.039 --> 00:15:29.320 So it's a profound philosophical stalemate, really. 00:15:29.539 --> 00:15:32.799 It is. It's the state's desperate need to defund 00:15:32.799 --> 00:15:35.759 criminal enterprises colliding head on with a 00:15:35.759 --> 00:15:38.200 citizen's absolute right to not be punished until 00:15:38.200 --> 00:15:40.549 formally proven guilty. And the charge lying 00:15:40.549 --> 00:15:42.870 on file is basically the battleground where these 00:15:42.870 --> 00:15:45.370 two ideas rip each other apart. It completely 00:15:45.370 --> 00:15:47.870 exposes the raw seams in the justice system. 00:15:48.429 --> 00:15:50.549 It shows us that the law is not always about 00:15:50.549 --> 00:15:53.669 pure justice. It is often about resource management, 00:15:54.070 --> 00:15:57.129 pragmatic compromises and just the quiet shifting 00:15:57.129 --> 00:15:59.490 of goalposts. Yeah. That's exactly right. So 00:15:59.490 --> 00:16:01.309 let's bring all of this together. We've journeyed 00:16:01.309 --> 00:16:03.629 through some incredibly complex legal architecture 00:16:03.629 --> 00:16:06.070 today. We really have. In the criminal courts 00:16:06.070 --> 00:16:09.570 of England and Wales, allowing a charge to lie 00:16:09.570 --> 00:16:13.409 on a file is this fascinating, deeply paradoxical 00:16:13.409 --> 00:16:16.590 administrative tool. It relies entirely on a 00:16:16.590 --> 00:16:19.029 judge confirming the presence of evidence combined 00:16:19.029 --> 00:16:22.169 with the deliberate systemic absence of a verdict. 00:16:22.429 --> 00:16:24.769 It's a mechanism born out of necessity, really. 00:16:25.009 --> 00:16:27.730 Courts are overwhelmed. When severe crimes are 00:16:27.730 --> 00:16:30.289 already resulting in lengthy sentences, the system 00:16:30.289 --> 00:16:33.029 triages its resources by putting lesser charges 00:16:33.029 --> 00:16:35.710 in a dormant state rather than spending public 00:16:35.710 --> 00:16:38.370 funds on redundant trials. But as we've seen 00:16:38.370 --> 00:16:40.129 through the lens of the Proceeds of Crime Act 00:16:40.129 --> 00:16:42.450 2002 and David Winch's razor -sharp critique, 00:16:42.870 --> 00:16:44.769 that dormant file doesn't just collect dust. 00:16:44.889 --> 00:16:47.139 No, it doesn't. By acting as a bridge to lower 00:16:47.139 --> 00:16:49.879 burdens of proof in civil courts, this shortcut 00:16:49.879 --> 00:16:53.460 creates a massive gray area. It allows a state 00:16:53.460 --> 00:16:56.080 to reach into your bank account and confiscate 00:16:56.080 --> 00:16:58.539 your assets based on a crime they explicitly 00:16:58.539 --> 00:17:01.480 chose not to prove you committed. And for you 00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:03.659 listening, the ultimate takeaway here is to look 00:17:03.659 --> 00:17:05.640 closely at the invisible compromises that govern 00:17:05.640 --> 00:17:08.519 our lives. Massive systems like the legal system, 00:17:08.619 --> 00:17:10.839 the healthcare system, the financial sector, 00:17:11.180 --> 00:17:13.359 they all make compromises every single day in 00:17:13.359 --> 00:17:15.519 the name of efficiency and the public interest. 00:17:16.140 --> 00:17:18.259 But we have to remain vigilant and constantly 00:17:18.259 --> 00:17:21.670 ask ourselves, How do those administrative shortcuts 00:17:21.670 --> 00:17:23.950 quietly erode the foundational principles we 00:17:23.950 --> 00:17:26.450 assume are protecting us? That is the exact friction 00:17:26.450 --> 00:17:29.150 we are left with. The gap between the noble ideal 00:17:29.150 --> 00:17:31.990 of justice and the messy, budgeted reality of 00:17:31.990 --> 00:17:34.490 actually administering it. Right. Which leaves 00:17:34.490 --> 00:17:36.670 us with a final thought. I want you to mull over 00:17:36.670 --> 00:17:39.529 today, long after this deep dive is over. We 00:17:39.529 --> 00:17:41.190 started this conversation by talking about how 00:17:41.190 --> 00:17:43.349 we expect the law to be like a broken arm on 00:17:43.349 --> 00:17:46.470 an x -ray. A clean, jagged white line. Broken 00:17:46.470 --> 00:17:49.069 or not broken? Guilty or innocent? But when a 00:17:49.069 --> 00:17:50.849 charge lies on file, you weren't looking at a 00:17:50.849 --> 00:17:52.690 clean break. You're just looking at a murky, 00:17:52.930 --> 00:17:55.190 undefined shadow on the film. And the terrifying 00:17:55.190 --> 00:17:57.869 part isn't the shadow itself. It's the realization 00:17:57.869 --> 00:18:00.630 that the state can still decide to amputate your 00:18:00.630 --> 00:18:03.349 livelihood, even when they actively refuse to 00:18:03.349 --> 00:18:04.690 give you an official diagnosis.