






The Court of Appeal handed down a Judgment yesterday regarding the enforcement of worldwide freezing orders in foreign jurisdictions.
When a Claimant obtains a worldwide freezing order, the Claimant will not normally be permitted to seek to freeze assets by means of proceedings in other jurisdictions. The Court can give permission in appropriate circumstances for a Claimant to pursue such foreign proceedings. In the Judgment handed down yesterday, the Court set out guidelines as to when it would be appropriate for permission to be given.
In the guidelines, the Court attempted to strike a balance between, amongst other things, the rights of the Claimant and the rights of third parties.
If is often the case that the assets of fraudsters are nominally held by third parties but if there is a real prospect of proving that the assets do belong to the fraudster, those assets may be frozen and subsequently Judgment may be enforced against them.
It was reported yesterday that the Serious Fraud Office has initiated prosecutions against nine individuals and five companies for their part in a £150 million price fixing fraud on the NHS.
It is said that the SFO will seek to make an example of the various accused in its largest operation since the Blue Arrow scandal in the early 1990's. If convicted, the five companies may face unlimited fines which could result in their bankruptcy.
When fraudulent or suspicious dealings become evident, victims, whether individuals or organisations, consider seeking immediate professional advice to recover losses and prevent further damage. In the event that a fraudulent scheme is uncovered, consideration should be given not only to pursuing the fraudster, but also to third parties who may have assisted in creating the fraudulent scheme.
Victims of such schemes may benefit from a range of civil law recovery mechanisms including disclosure orders, freezing the fraudster's assets and damages arising from those fraudulent acts.
| May 2006 | March 2006 |