A CAR thief from Bolton has been told he is still liable for a £65,000 Audi he stole from Manchester Airport - despite denying he cashed in on the vehicle.

An investigation was launched in September 2018 after an Audi Q7 was taken from a meet and greet service near Ringway.

Detectives said staff there were duped into believing a man was connected with the Audi’s owners and he drove away with the car.

Police later issued a CCTV still of the suspected thief and appealed for witnesses to come forward. The car, last seen in Great Harwood, near Blackburn, was never recovered.

This investigation led to the arrest and eventual conviction of car thief Adam Waring, who claimed he had been asked to steal the car by an Asian man in a bookmakers in Bolton.

Waring said he had been offered £300 to carry out the theft but the Asian man later reneged on the deal.

Later Waring, who admitted to the theft, was jailed for 58 weeks at Manchester Crown Court.

Prosecutors also successfully applied for a confiscation order, in the sum of £65,390. If he could not find the money then he faced an additional eight-month prison in default.

An application was made to the Court of Appeal to overturn the confiscation order, on the grounds that Judge Patrick Field QC, who imposed the sanction, had erred in law as Waring had only performed a service for a fee and not benefitted from the transaction.

His lawyers also contended that, under laws governing ‘tainted gifts’, it was disproportionate to make a confiscation order agains their client.

But Lady Justice Simler, sitting with Mrs Jusrice Cheema-Grubb and Mr Justice Barker, dismissed Waring’s appeal.

The Appeal Court heard Waring had identified his contact as a man called ‘Arfan’. But he had given no extra help on how to track this man down.

In their judgement, Lady Justice Simler said: “The appellant cannot but have been fully aware of the criminal scheme in which he was directly and critically involved.

“Having stolen the car in what was, as the judge described, an audacious theft involving trickery, sophisticated and planned as it was, there is no evidence to suggest anything other than that he obtained absolute power of disposition and control over it.

“He had no contractual, moral or other duty to transfer the car to Arfan or anyone else.”

The law lords accepted that it might have been unusual for prosecutors to seek an confiscation order, in the circumstances, and that may represent “potential serious hardship” for Waring.

But in their ruling, it was added: “This regime is a severe one designed to encourage or coerce those who dissipate the proceeds of crime into making good the losses thereby caused.”