The court ordered confiscated funds to be paid to two businesses damaged in the March 2024 warehouse fire.
A court ordered Dylan Earl to pay £164,301.13 in confiscated funds to two businesses damaged in the March 2024 Leyton warehouse arson attack. The report says the attack was linked to the Wagner Group, while the hearing focused on recovering available assets and compensating victims.
## Verified facts
The supplied report states that Dylan Earl, 22, was ordered by Judge Mark Lucraft KC to pay £164,301.13 confiscated funds as compensation to victims of an arson attack on a warehouse in Leyton, east London. The fire, which occurred on 20 March 2024, caused about £1 million in damage.
The report says £163,521 will be paid to Meest UK Ltd and £780 to the owner of Neck Stamper brewery, a neighbouring business damaged by the fire. The money must be paid within three months, with an 18-month prison sentence as the default penalty.
Earl had previously admitted aggravated arson and an offence under the National Security Act. He was jailed for 17 years, followed by six years on extended licence, after being convicted for his leading role in activities described in the report as a planned campaign of terrorism and sabotage carried out in the interests of the Russian state. The report also says he pleaded guilty to possession of criminal property and possession of cannabis with intent to supply.
Prosecutor Adam Payter told the court that Earl’s ill-gotten gains totalled £698,816.18, but that only £164,301.13 was available for confiscation, including cryptocurrency.
## Interpretation
The confiscation order converts identifiable available assets into compensation for the businesses affected by the fire. The amount recovered is substantially below the reported total of Earl’s alleged ill-gotten gains and far below the approximately £1 million in damage caused by the attack.
The supplied account presents the arson as part of a wider campaign linked to the Wagner Group and involving proxies, but the compensation hearing itself concerned the recovery and distribution of assets rather than a new finding about the wider campaign.
## Uncertainty and limitations
The supplied evidence does not identify the publication outlet by name, so the report is referred to only as the supplied report. The evidence also does not explain why only £164,301.13 of the reported £698,816.18 in gains was available for confiscation. No independent verification beyond the supplied report is available.
