The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005

Insolvency practitioners

3.  –

(1) Paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if a person acting as an insolvency practitioner seizes or disposes of any property in relation to which his functions are not exercisable because—

(a) it is for the time being subject to a restraint order made under article 8, 58 or 95; or

(b) it is for the time being subject to a property freezing order made under article 147, an interim receiving order made under article 151, a prohibitory property order made under article 161 or an interim administration order made under article 167,

and at the time of the seizure or disposal he believes on reasonable grounds that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of an order of a court or otherwise) to seize or dispose of the property.

(2) He is not liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal, except so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence.

(3) He has a lien on the property or the proceeds of its sale—

(a) for such of his expenses as were incurred in connection with the liquidation, bankruptcy, sequestration or other proceedings in relation to which he purported to make the seizure or disposal, and

(b) for so much of his remuneration as may reasonably be assigned to his acting in connection with those proceedings.

(4) Paragraph (2) does not prejudice the generality of any provision of the 1985 Act, the 1986 Act, the 1989 Order or any Act or Order which confers a protection from liability on him.

(5) Paragraph (7) applies if—

(a) property is subject to a restraint order made under article 8, 58 or 95,

(b) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner incurs expenses in respect of property subject to the restraint order, and

(c) he does not know (and has no reasonable grounds to believe) that the property is subject to the restraint order.

(6) Paragraph (7) also applies if—

(a) property is subject to a restraint order made under article 8, 58 or 95,

(b) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner incurs expenses which are not ones in respect of property subject to the restraint order, and

(c) the expenses are ones which (but for the effect of the restraint order) might have been met by taking possession of and realising property subject to it.

(7) Whether or not he has seized or disposed of any property, he is entitled to payment of the expenses under—

(a) article 33(2), 34(3), 35(2) or 36(3) if the restraint order was made under article 7,

(b) article 77(2) or 78(3) if the restraint order was made under article 58,

(c) article 119(2), 120(3), 121(2) or 122(3) if the restraint order was made under article 95.

(8) Paragraph (10) applies if—

(a) property is subject to a property freezing order made under article 147, an interim receiving order made under article 151, a prohibitory property order made under article 161 or an interim administration order made under article 167,

(b) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner incurs expenses in respect of property subject to the order, and

(c) he does not know (and has no reasonable grounds to believe) that the property is subject to the order.

(9) Paragraph (10) also applies if—

(a) property is subject to a property freezing order made under article 147, an interim receiving order made under article 151, a prohibitory property order made under article 161 or an interim administration order made under article 167,

(b) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner incurs expenses which are not ones in respect of property subject to the order, and

(c) the expenses are ones which (but for the effect of the order) might have been met by taking possession of and realising property subject to it.

(10) Whether or not he has seized or disposed of any property, he is entitled to payment of the expenses under article 191.