JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA Civ 1411 (06 November 2012)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA Civ 1411 (06 November 2012)

The Court found that Mr Ablyazov was in contempt of court for failing to disclose his beneficial ownership of assets, lying under oath regarding his ownership of properties and companies, and dealing with assets in breach of a freezing order. The evidence established, to the criminal standard, that he was the true beneficial owner of the relevant assets and had deliberately concealed and dissipated them. The committal, sentence, and unless orders were justified and proportionate responses to his contempt.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1411
Parties
Respondent / Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; Appellant / Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders of committal, sentence, and unless order upheld.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Fraud, Receivership, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking Law Contempt of Court Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Fraud Receivership +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Respondent / Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Ablyazov was in contempt of court for non-disclosure of assets, lying under oath, and dealing with assets in breach of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the committal, sentence, and unless orders were properly made

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mr Ablyazov was in contempt of court for failing to disclose his beneficial ownership of assets, lying under oath regarding his ownership of properties and companies, and dealing with assets in breach of a freezing order. The evidence established, to the criminal standard, that he was the true beneficial owner of the relevant assets and had deliberately concealed and dissipated them. The committal, sentence, and unless orders were justified and proportionate responses to his contempt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders of committal, sentence, and unless order upheld.

Orders

  • Mr Ablyazov remains committed to custody for 22 months on each of three contempts, to run concurrently.
  • Unless Mr Ablyazov surrenders to custody and makes proper disclosure of all assets and dealings within the specified period, he is debarred from defending the claims and his defences will be struck out.