United States of America (USA) v Abacha & Ors

United States of America (USA) v Abacha & Ors

The US forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature for the purposes of s.25. The fact that a US judgment may not be directly enforceable at common law in England does not make it inexpedient to grant interim relief, as the relief is to hold the ring pending lawful enforcement under the statutory regime. The prior settlement between Nigeria and the 2nd Defendant does not preclude the continuation of the injunction, and there was no material non-disclosure by the Claimant. It is expedient and appropriate for the English court to continue the Freezing Injunction in aid of the US proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: United States of America; 1st Defendant: Mohammed Sani Abacha; 2nd Defendant: Abubakar Atiku Bagudu; 3rd Defendant: Mecosta Securities, Inc; 4th Defendant: Ridley Group Limited; 5th Defendant: Blue Holding (1) Pte Limited; 6th Defendant: Blue Holding (2) Pte Limited; 7th Defendant: Standard Bank plc; 8th Defendant: HSBC Bank plc; 9th Defendant: HSBC Life (Europe) Limited; 10th Defendant: Waverton Investment Management Ltd; 11th Defendant: James Hambro & Partners LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Continue Freezing Injunction (interim Relief) Under S.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 / Hearing and Determination of Application to Continue Injunction
Outcome
Application to continue Freezing Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Mutual Legal Assistance, Money Laundering, Corruption, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure International Law Asset Recovery Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Mutual Legal Assistance Money Laundering +2 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United States of America

Claimant

Mohammed Sani Abacha

1st Defendant

Abubakar Atiku Bagudu

2nd Defendant

Mecosta Securities, Inc

3rd Defendant

Ridley Group Limited

4th Defendant

Blue Holding (1) Pte Limited

5th Defendant

Blue Holding (2) Pte Limited

6th Defendant

Standard Bank plc

7th Defendant

HSBC Bank plc

8th Defendant

HSBC Life (Europe) Limited

9th Defendant

Waverton Investment Management Ltd

10th Defendant

James Hambro & Partners LLP

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Continue Freezing Injunction (interim Relief) Under S.25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 / Hearing and Determination of Application to Continue Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Freezing Injunction granted ex parte should be continued under s.25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 in support of foreign (US) proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the US forfeiture proceedings are civil or criminal for the purposes of s.25
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient for the English court to grant interim relief in aid of the US proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The US forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature for the purposes of s.25. The fact that a US judgment may not be directly enforceable at common law in England does not make it inexpedient to grant interim relief, as the relief is to hold the ring pending lawful enforcement under the statutory regime. The prior settlement between Nigeria and the 2nd Defendant does not preclude the continuation of the injunction, and there was no material non-disclosure by the Claimant. It is expedient and appropriate for the English court to continue the Freezing Injunction in aid of the US proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to continue Freezing Injunction granted

Orders

  • Freezing Injunction continued against the Defendants as previously ordered by Teare J on 25 February 2014
  • Further submissions to be heard on cross-undertaking in damages, amendments to the order, and disclosure application