Posted on: March 7th, 2017
Amongst the wide array of tools available in the English Courts for intended and actual claimants are what have been described as the law’s two nuclear weapons, freezing injunctions and search orders. Since the seminal case of Chabra, Courts have been willing to grant freezing orders not just against defendants, but against third parties against whom no claim is advanced but who appear to hold assets on behalf of the defendant. Yet in the quarter of a century since Chabra, and until very recently, no case seems to have tried to use the search order jurisdiction in a similar way.
Posted on: January 18th, 2017
Today, EU Regulation No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 (“the Regulation”) takes effect. It establishes a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) procedure with the purpose of facilitating cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.
It is intended to operate as an alternative to domestic remedies, by allowing certain creditors in one participating Member State to freeze a debtor’s assets located in bank accounts in another participating Member State without first obtaining a court order within that state.
Applications can be made prior to commencing proceedings without notice to the debtor (as well as during proceedings and after judgment) and may give creditors the chance to obtain information about debtors’ bank accounts.
Posted on: November 28th, 2016
Last week, Russian Judgment debtor Andrey Chernyakov was forced to allow bailiffs to enter his London homes to search for and seize his assets. The Bank of Moscow had at the end of October obtained a £195m judgment against Mr Chernyakov. Mr Chernyakov had already been the subject of worldwide freezing orders. When the Bank sought to enforce by sending in the bailiffs, Mr Chernyakov refused them entry to his homes. Urgent relief was obtained within a matter of hours, permitting the bailiffs to use reasonable force to enter the homes that same day.
Posted on: November 3rd, 2016
We would like to thank our clients, referees, fellow professionals and others who have provided their support over the years in helping us top the rankings for civil fraud in both Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500. PCB received a Band 1 ranking for civil fraud in the UK in Chambers and Partners for the first time, while retaining its tier 1 position for civil fraud in London in The Legal 500.
According to Chambers and Partners, the firm assists “high-end clients including banks and corporations in getting to the bottom of sophisticated fraud scenarios.
Posted on: October 3rd, 2016
In a recent article for FraudNet (the ICC specialist fraud and asset recovery taskforce of which we are the UK member), we commented on the rise of Chinese-related disputes (https://icc-ccs.org/talkfraud/chinese-related-disputes-on-the-rise-steven). This theme has been echoed in The Lawyer magazine, which has just published a report on the performance of 30 leading Chinese law firms by revenue. It also analysed the revenue generated from litigation and found that litigation had been a strong driver for growth in the last 2 years. In 2015, according to statistics from the Supreme People’s Court, the number of cases handles by all courts in China increased by 21% from 13.8 million to 16.7 million, with the total sum claimed increasing from RMB 2.90 trillion to RMB 4 trillion.
Posted on: September 15th, 2016
As specialist fraud and asset recovery lawyers, we regularly successfully pursue those behind the commission of economic wrongdoing as well as those who have assisted in such wrongdoing.
However, whilst there are various available methods of pursuing perpetrators on a civil basis (with which we are well versed), moves are again afoot to seek to plug gaps in the criminal sphere.
In July 2014, we reported upon the Head of the SFO’s proposal to extend the ambit of section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 for corporates “failing to prevent” acts of employees (see http://www.pcblitigation.com/media/potential-corporate-fraud-amendment-to-bribery-act-2010/).
Posted on: July 22nd, 2016
In figures published on 21 July 2016, the Office for National Statistics has estimated that there were 3.8 million instances of fraud in England and Wales in the 12 months to the end of March. This highlights the extent to which fraud has permeated all levels of society.
However, and notwithstanding the options available to victims of fraud, it would appear that only a low proportion of victims report such incidents. In the absence of specialist assistance, victims are often left with no redress and fraudsters can get away with their ill-gotten gains.
Posted on: June 2nd, 2016
As from April 2016 there is a mandatory obligation on UK companies to maintain a register of the individual(s) who ultimately owns or controls more than 25% of a company’s shares or voting rights. From June 2016 details contained on the register (known as the Register of People with Significant Control (“PSC”)) are to be filed at Companies House and shall thereafter be made public. The register must detail the full name, date of birth, nationality, country of residence, residential address and service address of the individual(s) concerned, along with the date on which the interest was acquired and details of how it is held.
Posted on: April 4th, 2016
According to the BBC today, 11.5 million documents leaked from a Panamanian law firm (the so-called Panama Papers) reveal links to massive asset concealment running to billions of dollars being conducted by numerous international persons including heads of state.
Such disclosure may enable fraud victims amongst others a unique opportunity to recover losses using the remedies offered by Courts in numerous jurisdictions to help them to locate, freeze and recover assets.
PCB has extensive experience in this respect and is the UK member of ICC’s FraudNet (https://icc-ccs.org/home/fraudnet), a worldwide network of lawyers specialising in asset recovery that has recovered billions of dollars for victim of some of the world’s largest and most sophisticated global frauds.
Posted on: March 29th, 2016
If parties agree to refer to any disputes to arbitration, it would be reasonable to assume that only they can be parties to any ensuing arbitration. A recent decision of the English High Court concerning a lucrative redevelopment in Moscow has demonstrated that this is not always the case, and that parents of Russian companies in particular are vulnerable to being dragged into an arbitration to which they did not sign up.
In Egiazaryan and another v OJSC OEK Finance and The City of Moscow  EWHC 3532 (Comm), the High Court overturned an award by a LCIA tribunal seated in London.