POCA reform in 2026: stronger asset recovery powers, sharper practical risks

Cash stops moving. 

Legal funding becomes uncertain. 

Business payments, personal obligations and commercial decisions can all be thrown into difficulty before any final finding has been made.

That is why the 2026 reforms to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 deserve close attention. 

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 (“CPA”) strengthens the confiscation and asset recovery regime, with a clear policy objective: recover more criminal proceeds, recover them faster and reduce the scope for assets to be moved beyond reach. For businesses, individuals and third parties caught up in financial investigations, the practical question is not only whether an order can be challenged, but how quickly its financial and operational consequences can be managed.

AFOs and restraint orders: earlier intervention, broader impact

Account freezing orders (“AFOs”) remain a particularly powerful tool because they allow enforcement authorities to freeze funds held in bank or building society accounts where there is reasonable suspicion that the money is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. In practice, AFOs can now be used in an increasingly wide range of fraud, money laundering, corporate crime and regulatory investigations. They are attractive to enforcement authorities because they are relatively quick to obtain and can preserve funds while the wider investigation develops.

Restraint orders operate differently but can be just as significant. They are designed to preserve assets pending possible confiscation following conviction. The changes introduced by the CPA codify and clarify the factors the court must consider when assessing whether there is a real risk of dissipation. Those factors include the nature of the property, evidence of steps taken to dissipate assets, the circumstances and character of the person holding the property, the defendant’s criminal record, the suspected criminal benefit and the stage of the proceedings.

However, a clearer test does not necessarily mean fewer disputes. In practice, it may lead to more challenges to restraint applications, particularly where the alleged risk of asset dissipation is finely balanced.

A defendant or affected third party will want to scrutinise whether the alleged risk is supported by evidence or whether the order is unnecessarily broad. Enforcement agencies, in turn, will be encouraged to present a more structured case as to why intervention is necessary.

Funding and access to representation

The most immediate practical issue in many restrained-asset cases is funding. A person whose assets are frozen may still need to pay for legal advice, meet ordinary living costs, preserve business assets or comply with existing obligations. The CPA reforms expressly address exceptions for reasonable legal expenses and reasonable living expenses. The court must specify the total sum that may be released for legal costs, alongside any conditions. In relation to living expenses, the court must consider matters including the expected duration of the order, the person’s standard of living and means, the value of realisable property and the likely impact on any future confiscation order.

This is likely to be a key battleground. The court will need to balance the public interest in preserving assets against the individual’s ability to obtain proper advice and maintain a basic level of financial stability. Businesses may face an additional layer of complexity where frozen funds are needed for payroll, rent, suppliers or regulatory compliance. Early, detailed evidence will be essential.

Why this matters

The direction of travel is towards a more proactive and better-resourced asset recovery regime. Following a conviction, prosecutors are expected to consider confiscation wherever a defendant has benefited from criminal conduct, and the reforms are intended to make orders more realistic, enforceable and capable of producing returns for victims and public services. That policy aim is understandable, but the practical consequences can be severe where assets are frozen before liability is established or where third-party interests are affected.

For clients, the message is simple. Do not treat an AFO, restraint order or confiscation timetable as an administrative inconvenience. These orders can alter the commercial and litigation dynamics of a case immediately. They require urgent analysis of the statutory test, the evidential basis for the application, the scope of the order, available exclusions and the impact on connected individuals or businesses.

Key takeaways

• Act quickly – strict timeframes and immediate operational disruption mean delay can be costly.
• Focus on evidence – challenges to AFOs and restraint orders will often turn on whether suspicion, dissipation risk and proportionality are properly supported.
• Protect funding routes: applications for legal expenses, living expenses or business-critical payments should be supported by clear figures and documents.
• Consider third-party interests early – jointly owned assets, company funds and innocent third-party rights need careful treatment.
• Keep the bigger picture in view – early asset recovery decisions may shape settlement strategy, criminal proceedings, confiscation exposure and reputational risk.