Money laundering suspicion to be explained
The customer sought to sue his bank for failing to meet his cheque. The bank sought to rely on the 2002 Act, having reported suspicious activity on freezing the account. He now appealed against summary judgment given for the bank which had refused to explain why it had made the report.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The relevant suspicion need not be based on reasonable grounds. However the court could see no reason why the bank should not be put to its proof of having a relevant suspicion, and summary judgement was not appropriate. It is for the bank to prove that it suspected their customer to be involved in money-laundering.
Ward, Longmore, Lloyd LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 31, Times 01-Apr-2010, [2010] 3 All ER 477, [2010] Bus LR 1514, [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 67, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 276
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 335
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – UMBS Online Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Serious Organised Crime Agency and Another CA 2-May-2007
The bank had reported to the respondent its suspicions about funds it held for the claimant. The accounts were frozen, and the customer now sought a judicial review of the refusal of the Agency to reconsider its decision.
Held: The review was . .
Cited – K Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and others CA 19-Jul-2006
The bank had declined to act upon a customer’s instructions, reporting its suspicions of criminal activity to the police. Permission was given to proceed but only after a delay. The claimant customer sought its costs.
Held: The customer’s . .
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Equitable Life Assurance Society v Ernst and Young CA 25-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from its accountants, saying that had they been advised of the difficulties in their financial situation, they would have been able to avoid the loss of some 2.5 billion pounds, or to sell their assets at a time when . .
Cited – King v The Serious Fraud Office CACD 18-Mar-2008
Restraint and Disclosure orders had been made on without notice applications at the request of South Africa. The applicant appealed a refusal of their discharge.
Held: Such orders did not apply to the applicant’s assets in Scotland. The orders . .
Appeal from – Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 26-Jan-2009
The claimants sought damages after delays by the bank in processing transfer requests. The bank said that the delays were made pending reports of suspected criminal activity. The bank’s delay had stigmatised the claimant causing further losses. The . .
Cited by:
Main Judgment – Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd (Costs) CA 4-Feb-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Crime, Litigation Practice
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.396603
