Ooooh! This is interesting. If she is prosecuted anything she's spent or bought in the last 6 years could be treated as the proceeds of crime.
https://insolvencyservice.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/13/confiscating-the-proceeds-of-crime/
'In our prosecutions, the defendants are usually bankrupts and directors. As there is an insolvency process in place, assets are either vested in a trustee in bankruptcy or dealt with by a liquidator or office holder. These factors also affect the decision to bring confiscation proceedings as there may not be assets available for confiscation.
Bringing a confiscation case
The benefit of the offending conduct can be assessed in 2 ways; the actual benefit obtained from the offending conduct, and
where the defendant is deemed by the court to have a “criminal lifestyle”.
If it is the latter, then the criminal lifestyle assumptions are invoked and are both far reaching and draconian. This means that in the 6 years before criminal proceedings started, property transferred to, obtained or held by the defendant and expenditure made, are considered as being the proceeds of crime. The defendant has the onus of rebutting these assumptions.'
.........
Crime really does not pay
The case of Bottjer and Hearn shows that those who think they can circumvent the regulatory regime when they breach, or help those who breach, a disqualification undertaking, should consider that any benefit they derive as a result of that conduct will be scrutinised and confiscated.
The scrutiny is not confined to the offending period, it can extend up to 6 years before the case is brought, giving the court the power to make a confiscation order of even higher value.
Crime really does not pay! '