The first defendant’s bankers had heard of his conviction for fraud in Israel and had notified his and associated bank accounts to SOCA. He now appealed against ex parte world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure orders (DO) made againt him. The PFO appellants sought an order varying the property freezing order so as, inter alia, to exclude from its ambit property that was located outside England and Wales and to limit disclosure obligations under the DO to assets located within England and Wales.
Held: Although there is a presumption against giving the relevant provisions of POCA extraterritorial effect, with the exception of section 286, which applied only to an order made in Scotland, the language of the relevant provisions so clearly applied to property outside the jurisdiction that it displaced this presumption.
Judges:
Mitting J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1711 (Admin), [2011] 1 Costs LR 22, [2010] 1 WLR 2761
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Perry and Others Admn 30-Jul-2009
The respondents sought to have set aside a world wide asset freezing and associated orders obtained by SOCA against them. They said that the Court had no jurisdiction over them, and that the Agency was guilty of wilful non-disclosure. They first . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Perry and Others v Serious Organised Crime Agency SC 25-Jul-2012
The first appellant had been convicted of substantial frauds in Israel. He appealed against world wide asset freezing (PFO) and disclosure (DO) orders made against him. Neither the appellant, nor his offences were connected with the UK. A bank . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Criminal Practice
Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.421880
