It would be interesting to know what the legal reasoning was behind the order to seize money in her possession.
If, say, he had stolen a car and given it to her, there would be no problem returning it to the rightful owner. Does she have any right to the money that was given her if she did not know it was illegally obtained?
But from the newspaper reports, there seems to be an element that she obtained the amount of money unreasonably, if not illegally.
There was recently a case where a cult brainwashed a man into handing over property worth six figures. He went to court and had the property returned, even though he had handed it over contractually. The woman reminds me a little bit of a shark builder who charges some old folk many times more than should be charged, simply because she can get away with it and the payee is in thrall of her. She maybe waved her fanny instead of ridiculous claims and promises. He might have been stupid paying her so much, but she could hardly be said not to be taking advantage. It was not the normal rate by any reasonable definition.
The courts can't return the money to him - it was obtained illegally and also they have CPS guidelines intended "to address the demand for prostitution services and reduce all forms of commercial sexual exploitation . . . developed, in part, to enable the UK to meet its international legal obligations to discourage the demand for sexual services in support of Conventions to suppress and prevent trafficking for sexual exploitation." Giving him a bollocking and letting her off scott free would appear to go against the tide. Personally I think she sounds like a cunt - even if a little more transparency of process would have been nice. My brain hurts. Maybe someone else can work out exactly what happened?
