Quote ="Big Graeme"
Then you don't understand the verdict then.
This is a clash between the criminal system and the civil law.'"
I understand the verdict perfectly well. In fact, this is nothing new as the power to do this has always been there ever since the implementation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Section 5 to be precise).
My reference to the Scottish system was because the "Not Proven" verdict usually implies that a defendant wasn't innocent but the evidence was not quite strong enough to give a 'beyond reasonable doubt' guilty verdict. SOCA use a similar principle in that they make the argument that while the evidence was not strong enough to give a guilty criminal verdict, there is still enough evidence to satisfy the 'balance of probabilities' test of the civil system.
There is no clash between the criminal and civil law as you suggest - the threshold is different and this kind of thing happens all the time. For example, where I used to work we had an employee who was fraudulently using his company credit card and got caught. He was found not guilty at crown court but we were able to sue him and recover the value of the goods he had bought in civil court as the district judge agreed that on the balance of probability he had been the person who had acquired them.
