About the author: J Spooner works at the intersection of law, research and storytelling – helping organisations navigate complexity and communicate clearly to advance human rights, climate justice and positive systemic change.
PROFIT OR CRIME SCENE? Could profits from human rights hot zones be treated as criminal property under UK law? A legal thought experiment.
When Two Worlds Collide
For over 20 years, my work in theatre was about imagining brave new worlds – conjuring ‘impossible’ versions of reality that felt brighter, more hopeful, and offered an optimistic vision of futures we might shape together. Our goal was to create experiences that left audiences thinking “What if…?” and feeling inspired to act.
Now, as a newly qualified human rights lawyer, the material is different but the impulse, surprisingly, is not. The work often begins with examining the past: facts, harms, evidence. Real lives, often irreparably altered. But the point of that examination isn’t only to achieve justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators – it’s to shape the future. Set new precedents. Redefine what’s acceptable. Like crafting a really good story, it turns the world a slightly different colour than it was before.
The Spark
So what happens when these two worlds – storytelling and the law – collide? This wondering, for me, was sparked by Charlotte Branfield’s brilliantly incisive presentation at a recent Legal Voices for the Future event (recording linked below):
“Can we be truly creative with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and imagine how it might be used differently to support Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) goals?”
Against the backdrop that environmental crime costs society up to $281 billion annually, her question really stuck with me. Branfield made clear that POCA’s civil recovery powers are both draconian and under-used – typically deployed against drug dealers, tax avoiders and kleptocrats but rarely, if ever, applied to corporate environmental and human rights abuses. And tucked inside POCA case law is the wonderfully expressed idea of “irresistible inference” – a working legal principle that allows assets to be recovered without a criminal conviction, when a compelling pattern of circumstantial evidence makes criminality the only plausible conclusion.
Which led me to an intriguing question:
What if… profits generated through decades of environmental destruction, systemic repression and alleged complicity in human rights abuses, could be treated as criminal property under English law, recovered, and reinvested for public benefit?
The Thought Experiment
What follows is my unpacking of this legal thought experiment: rooted in jurisprudence, grounded in statute, sharpened by precedent. It’s an invitation to imagine new strategies for corporate accountability – and how we might build fairer futures through the law.
Introduction
This paper explores a bold and novel approach: using the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) to pursue civil recovery of wealth accumulated through corporate environmental and human rights violations in the fossil fuel sector. It asks whether the evidential strategy of irresistible inference can be adapted to recover “property” derived from unlawful conduct by fossil fuel companies and their executives.
The central argument is this: if repeated allegations, non-liability settlements, and divestments following environmental scandals or legal proceedings can be shown to form a pattern, then an irresistible inference may be drawn that corporate and executive wealth has been derived from illegal activity. That finding could trigger grounds for recovery, restitution or – at the very least – a public reckoning.
This paper is intended for strategic litigation specialists, public interest lawyers, investigative journalists, policymakers and climate or anti-corruption campaigners. It is also a provocation to rethink how we hold power to account.
Part I – The ‘Irresistible Inference’ Approach and POCA
In civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of POCA, enforcement agencies may recover property that is believed to have been obtained through unlawful conduct, even if no criminal conviction has been secured. These proceedings, brought in the High Court, are governed by the civil standard of proof – that is, whether it is more likely than not that the property represents the proceeds of crime.
Inference from circumstantial evidence plays a vital role in meeting this standard. In Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Green [2005] EWHC 3168 (Admin), the High Court made clear that civil recovery cannot rest on suspicion alone: there must be a coherent narrative of unlawful conduct linking the property to its criminal origin. However, the Court accepted that direct evidence of a specific offence is not required; instead, the Court may draw inferences from a pattern of facts that, taken together, point to an unlawful source.
In R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354 [21], the Court of Appeal confirmed that criminal property can be established in two ways:
- “by showing that it derives from conduct of a specific kind or kinds and that conduct of that kind or those kinds is unlawful”
- “by evidence of the circumstances in which the property is handled which are such as to give rise to the irresistible inference that it can only be derived from crime.”
Whilst many POCA cases focus on more ‘traditional’ crime (e.g. drug dealing) and are typically geared towards individuals with large amounts of cash (e.g. a bag of £200,000 found in a hidden compartment in a car linked to a drug gang gives rise to an irresistible inference of drug dealing), a similar evidential approach could be applied to environmental cases.
The Anwoir principle – that a compelling pattern of circumstantial facts can justify civil recovery – could support the use of POCA where direct evidence of a specific offence is unavailable. For example… a history of out-of-court settlements, substantiated allegations of bribery of state officials, and ‘timely’ divestments from increasingly troubled subsidiaries may, taken together, give rise to an irresistible inference of unlawful conduct. This approach could help bridge the gap between suspicion and admissible evidence in cases of corporate environmental or human rights abuses.
The next sections explore how this evidential approach could be used against companies (Part II) and individuals (Part III), and how campaigners might deploy it as both a legal and storytelling tool (Part IV).
Part II – Holding Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable
1. Civil and Criminal Recovery Against Companies
While POCA is often applied to individuals, its powers extend equally to corporate entities. Fossil fuel companies are not immune from either criminal confiscation or civil recovery proceedings – and there is precedent, particularly in relation to bribery and corruption, for significant financial penalties against them.[1]
POCA’s Part 5 allows enforcement agencies to seek civil recovery of assets from companies provided they can show that, on the balance of probabilities, those assets represent the proceeds of unlawful conduct. This could include cash reserves, dividends, intellectual property or share buybacks funded by tainted profits, since assets are considered “cleansed” only in limited circumstances. An illustrative example is the current scrutiny of the clothing company Shein: if cotton is produced using forced labour, that constitutes the underlying unlawful conduct.[2] The taint (of the unlawful production at source) may therefore follow the product through the supply chain – meaning t-shirts made from that cotton, and the profits they generate, could be treated as recoverable property, even where the company at the end of the chain did not directly commit the offence.
This example supports the evidential logic behind the “irresistible inference” approach – that surrounding circumstances may indicate criminal origin, even without proof of a specific offence. This principle that can also apply when targeting corporate profits – for example:
- where a company repeatedly settles allegations of environmental or human rights abuses without admitting liability;
- where it shows unusual profitability during periods linked to alleged unlawful activity;
- where it divests from high-risk operations in the wake of scandal (e.g. Shell’s sale of SPDC in Nigeria).[3]
Individually, these events may not meet the criminal standard of proof. But taken together – especially when supported by whistleblower testimony, regulatory findings or leaked internal documents – they may allow a court to irresistibly infer that the profits in question are derived from unlawful conduct. Under the civil standard of proof, that inference may be sufficient to trigger recovery proceedings.
2. Strategic and Political Considerations
Historically, corporate environmental crime has received limited enforcement attention. However, cases such as World Uyghur Congress v National Crime Agency show that strategic litigation and public pressure can set important new precedents and prompt authorities to pay closer attention.[2]
Civil recovery proceedings against fossil fuel companies could not only expose harmful practices but also produce wider regulatory and political consequences. For example, they could:
- incentivise directors to strengthen compliance frameworks;
- pressure investors to re-evaluate ESG risks;
- and demonstrate that corporate wrongdoing carries real financial consequences.
Even unsuccessful cases may generate disclosures, media scrutiny or internal shifts that change the enforcement landscape. These legal strategies do more than challenge individual decisions – they invite a systemic reconsideration of how wealth generated through harm is treated in law.
3. What if…?
What if… the UK were to recover even a fraction of the wealth generated through harmful conduct abroad by major corporations headquartered here? Consider Shell’s operations in Nigeria as a hypothetical example: if even 10% of the company’s historic onshore oil profits – conservatively estimated in the tens of billions – were linked to unlawful conduct, and subsequently flowed into executive pay, dividends or share buybacks, the amounts recoverable could reach hundreds of millions, potentially BILLIONS, for the UK Treasury.
Using POCA’s civil recovery powers, the UK could take action not just to penalise wrongdoing and strengthen its own public purse, but also return a portion of that wealth to the Nigerian communities whose lives and lands were devastated. In doing so, the UK would set a precedent for reparative climate justice – demonstrating how domestic legal tools can be leveraged to support those who have borne the costs of extractive profit. In an era of deepening climate crisis, this is not only a question of justice – it is a moral and strategic imperative.
Part III – Lifting the Veil: Holding Executives to Account
If corporate profits derived from harmful or unlawful conduct can be subject to civil recovery, might the same logic apply to the personal wealth of those who benefit most directly? Fossil fuel executives routinely receive substantial bonuses, dividends and other rewards tied to corporate profitability including, potentially, profits linked to environmental or human rights abuses.
Corporations may present as faceless legal entities, but they are led by individuals who are handsomely rewarded for delivering profit. With that reward comes both moral responsibility and legal duties. If those duties and responsibility are neglected, accountability should not stop at the corporate veil.
1. Civil Recovery under POCA Part 5
Enforcement agencies can apply to the High Court for a civil recovery order against any property they believe was obtained through unlawful conduct. [4] This includes property held by individuals such as corporate executives. The civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies, and there is no need to secure a criminal conviction.
Where alleged patterns of corporate wrongdoing can be well-documented – e.g. repeated regulatory violations, environmental damage, human rights complaints – a compelling circumstantial case could be built that the executive’s financial gain was derived from those acts.
Supporting evidence could include:
- Internal corporate reports/emails or whistleblower statements.
- Out-of-court financial settlements arising from claims of environmental harm (e.g. Bodo v Shell, Kiobel v Shell).
- Timing of bonuses or stock options that correlate with periods of unlawful activity.
- Patterns of concealment, such as opaque corporate structures or divestments from historically problematic sites. If an executive received remuneration during or immediately after a period in which unlawful conduct generated substantial profits for the company, this may strengthen the argument that their wealth was derived from unlawful conduct.
2. Alternative Legal Routes to Target Individuals
While POCA’s civil recovery powers are central to this strategy, other legal tools – like veil-piercing and civil claims in tort or equity – may also be used to go after the assets and liability of fossil fuel executives.
Piercing the Corporate Veil
Although company directors are ordinarily protected by the ‘corporate veil’, courts may disregard this protection in limited circumstances – particularly where the corporate structure is being used to conceal unlawfully obtained property, frustrate enforcement or disguise personal enrichment. Relevant scenarios include:
- use of a company as a facade or sham for criminal activity;
- exercise of complete control by an individual over a company used to launder proceeds;
- holding of property via corporate entities in a way that conceals personal benefit.
In R v Seager [2009] EWCA Crim 1303 [76], the Court of Appeal confirmed that POCA permits recovery of assets held by a company where the company functions as the alter ego of an individual involved in criminal conduct. While most large fossil fuel companies are not likely to meet the threshold of sham entities, evidence that executives personally directed or profited from unlawful conduct could justify veil-piercing – particularly where corporate-held assets are used for individual gain.
Private Civil Claims
In parallel with State-led recovery, individual victims may also pursue executives directly through civil claims in tort (e.g. negligence, conspiracy) or equity (e.g. knowing receipt, unjust enrichment). For example:
- In Vedanta v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20 and reaffirmed in Okpabi v Shell [2021] UKSC 3, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that parent companies may owe a duty of care to those harmed by overseas subsidiaries.
- Executives who personally approved or directed harmful practices may be liable as joint tortfeasors.
- Bonuses or share awards linked to unlawful profits may be argued to be held on constructive trust and therefore subject to restitution.
Even unsuccessful claims can expose internal practices and apply reputational or political pressure. These routes complement POCA and offer alternative avenues for redress, particularly when State enforcement is slow or absent.
Part IV – Strategic Litigation and Storytelling
The strength of this strategy lies not only in its legal foundation, but in its power to reshape public understanding and expose the human cost of impunity. Legal action – especially when grounded in strong narrative, moral clarity and accessible language – can catalyse change beyond the courtroom.
This section outlines how campaigns using POCA-inspired legal reasoning can: (1) reframe public expectations of corporate and executive accountability; (2) build cross-sector coalitions to support advocacy, journalism and public education; (3) apply pressure on regulators and enforcement agencies through strategic storytelling and litigation.
1. Building a Story: From Legal Theory to Human Impact
At the heart of this strategy is a simple but devastating story: that individuals have become extraordinarily wealthy through harmful conduct giving rise to an irresistible inference of illegality – and the law has failed to hold them accountable. By reframing executive bonuses, corporate buybacks and shareholder dividends as potential proceeds of crime, the issue becomes concrete, urgent and legible to the wider public.
Strategic storytelling involves:
- Connecting real-world harms (e.g. oil spills, displacement, health crises) to profits and executive wealth.
- Highlighting patterns of cover-up (e.g. non-liability settlements, divestments, suppression of dissent).
- Highlighting the double standard in enforcement (e.g. drug dealers prosecuted under POCA, but oil executives left untouched)
2. Creating Precedent, Even Without Winning
As seen in World Uyghur Congress v NCA, litigation can influence policy and legal interpretation. A campaign that initiates a high-profile POCA-style case, even if unsuccessful, can:
- Compel regulators to justify their inaction.
- Establish facts that can be cited in future legal or political contexts.
- Prompt media and parliamentary scrutiny of enforcement gaps.
- Inspire similar actions in other jurisdictions.
Legal challenges can educate, expose and inspire – revealing what’s possible, what’s failing, and what can (or must) change.
3. Campaigns that Cross the Streams
Some of the most effective advocacy in recent years has come from projects that blend legal analysis, storytelling, protest and digital/social media. Examples such as the Choked Up initiative, the Stop Rosebank campaign and Global Witness work on the OPL 245 scandal show how sustained cross-sector effort can drive systemic accountability.
This approach could:
- Bring together lawyers, journalists, artists and NGOs to co-create case materials.
- Collaborate with law schools, firms and campaigners to build public fluency in key legal principles.
- Increase pressure through FOI requests, shareholder actions and regulatory complaints.
The aim would be to create a new public norm: that companies and executives who profit from harm must, actually, be held accountable under the law.
4. A Platform for Partnerships and Power-Building
More than a litigation strategy, this approach is a platform for alliance-building. While traditional efforts are often siloed – legal in one corner, creative in another – this work invites collaboration toward a shared goal:
· to tell the truth about how wealth is accumulated and hidden;
· and to make it harder for those responsible for harm to deny responsibility.
A POCA-inspired narrative – especially one grounded in a specific case – could bring together a powerful coalition of lawyers, journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and artists committed to lasting structural change.
In Conclusion
This paper is very much a beginning. Its ambition is not only to hold those who have profited most from harm to account, but to catalyse new ways of thinking about what justice means in the age of climate crisis. POCA offers a left-field but potent legal, and symbolic, framework. With creativity, collaboration and courage, it could be transposed from a tool of crime suppression into a lever for climate accountability. By applying the same ‘common-sense’ logic of “irresistible inference” to multinational corporations and their executives as we do to drug dealers, or fraudsters, the taint of knowingly profiting from criminal activity could trigger profound positive cultural and societal change.
Thanks to Charlotte Branfield of Three Raymond Buildings for her initial provocation and subsequent support in checking the legal reasoning of this argument.
This paper does not make or imply any allegation of criminal conduct against any named individual or company. References to unlawful conduct refer to conduct that has been publicly alleged, litigated or settled, and are cited as part of a broader analysis of legal and strategic enforcement frameworks.
[1] See: R v Serco Geografix Ltd (2021) (fraud and false accounting); SFO v Airbus SE (2020) (bribery); SFO v Rolls-Royce plc (2017) (bribery); SFO v Standard Bank plc (2015) (failure to prevent bribery). Although these cases did not involve POCA, they illustrate a wider trend of increased corporate accountability for economic crime in the UK.
[2] For an outline of the case and its implications see
https://www.libertaschambers.com/media-hub/dirty-money-case-study-world-uyghur-congress-v-nca/
[3] See Shell’s reporting here
and an alternative take on the divestment process here
https://www.somo.nl/shells-reckless-divestment-from-niger-delta/
[4] “Enforcement agencies” refers to government bodies with civil recovery powers, including the National Crime Agency (NCA), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Serious Fraud Office (SFO), HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and others.
Image credit: AI-generated using ChatGPT / DALL·E.
Legal Voices for the Future 
Leave a comment