UK - What is SWIM's friend likely to get.

[cannabis-sam]

Last night SWIM's friend got busted for dealing cannabis. Although SWIM hasn't spoken to him since the raid, he always had large quantaties in so SWIM assumes it was found. SWIM knows there was an acurate set of scales several bags and a pile of about £6000 cash. Previous conviction for posession. As is was saturday night it is also likely there was enough coke and or MDMA for personal use.

Is the cash likely to be siezed? what sentence will he get? will he be able to claim personal use even with said evidence being found.

In the unlikely event no drugs were there, would the cash still be siezed?

[Joe-(5-HTP)]

The cash will be seized even if there are no drugs there and they won't give it back unless your friend can prove he acquired it legitimately.

[cannabis-sam]

Also SWIM should add he pulled up outside the house in the middle of the raid, and saw a couple of his friends that go there being warned for possession outside. SWIM drove off very quickly.

SWIM is quite worried for his friend.

cannabis-sam added 3 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

SWIM forgot to add this friend lives with a couple of his mates, he is the tenant of the house, will all people living there be charged with dealing/possession or just the tenant?

[Pondlife]

Assuming a large quantity of cannabis was found together with scales, then the charge would be supply or possession with intent to supply a class B drug. The current magistrates guidelines say:

For small scale retail supply the range is medium level community order to 26 weeks custody. This assumes a first-time offender pleading not guilty. A guilty plea will give a reduction in sentence.

For anything other than small scale supply, the guidance is to commit to crown court.

Looking at the cash, this could be seized under the Proceeds of Crime act. 6K is well above the minimum threshold. One nasty thing about this act is that it uses civil, not criminal, law. So the burden of proof required is the lower "balance of probablilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt".