CASE COMMENTS Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226, [2005] 1 WLR 3083 It has been held that “a person commits an offense if he enters into or becomes involved in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitating (by any means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person.” In Bowman v Fels, the courts concluded that this section of the law had not been interpreted so as to cover or influence the normal conduct of litigation by legal professionals, which was the issue raised in this case. The facts of the case are quite simple. Jennifer Mary Bowman, the appellant, lived with the defendant, William John Fels, for a period of ten years between May 1993 and April 2003. The premises in which they resided were registered in the sole name of the defendant. After the relationship between the appellant and the respondent ended, the appellant asserted the right to usufruct over the property which they had jointly occupied. The appellant believed that she rightfully had authority over the house since prior to the purchase the respondent had expressly agreed to share the purchase of the premises with her. This argument was brought before the Chamber after the accused had gone back on his word, thus starting the legal proceedings. In preparing for the trial, Bowman's lawyers suspected that Fels had mistakenly included in his accounts certain expenses such as business costs, as well as VAT returns made on site. Bowman's lawyers notified the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) of this under their obligations under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but as a result they had to seek to delay the process as... half of the paper... .... let yourself be captivated by this section. The possibility of a disclosure authorized by a statutory legal profession's defense of privilege occurring is quite unlikely. In conclusion, I think the court was justified in upholding Judge Cowell's order and dismissing the appeal. While there remain some gray areas that the case has not resolved, he is right that it should not actually cover or influence the normal conduct of litigation by legal professionals. If the courts reached a different conclusion, it would lead to a plethora of unwanted criticism and problems that the drafters of the statute would not have otherwise foreseen. By adopting the orders issued in this case, I think it would have affirmed the position of this law and can serve as a point of reference for other courts in subsequent cases.