AKCINÉ BENDROVÉ BANKAS SNORAS (IN BANKRUPTCY) v MR. VLADIMIR ANTONOV

AKCINÉ BENDROVÉ BANKAS SNORAS (IN BANKRUPTCY) v MR. VLADIMIR ANTONOV

The applications for stay, discharge, and variation of the worldwide freezing order were refused. The risk of prejudice to Mr. Antonov did not outweigh the Bank's and creditors' interests in proceeding; any prejudice could be addressed by safeguards. The Bank's non-disclosure regarding the UK restraint order was not sufficiently material or culpable to justify discharge of the freezing order. Asset disclosure was necessary and appropriate safeguards would be imposed to protect against misuse in foreign criminal proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: Akciné Bendrové Bankas Snoras (in Bankruptcy); First Defendant: Mr. Vladimir Antonov; Second Defendant: Mr. Raimondas Baranauskas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application (stay, Discharge, and Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order)
Outcome
Applications for stay, discharge, and variation of the worldwide freezing order refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Mutual Legal Assistance, Extradition, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Risk of Dissipation, Delay in Injunction Applications
Civil Procedure Banking Law Insolvency International Law Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Privilege Against Self Incrimination Mutual Legal Assistance +4 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 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akciné Bendrové Bankas Snoras (in Bankruptcy)

Claimant

Mr. Vladimir Antonov

First Defendant

Mr. Raimondas Baranauskas

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application (stay, Discharge, and Variation of Worldwide Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to stay civil proceedings pending extradition/criminal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether to discharge the worldwide freezing order for non-disclosure, delay, or lack of risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether to vary the freezing order to relieve the defendant from asset disclosure obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for stay, discharge, and variation of the worldwide freezing order were refused. The risk of prejudice to Mr. Antonov did not outweigh the Bank's and creditors' interests in proceeding; any prejudice could be addressed by safeguards. The Bank's non-disclosure regarding the UK restraint order was not sufficiently material or culpable to justify discharge of the freezing order. Asset disclosure was necessary and appropriate safeguards would be imposed to protect against misuse in foreign criminal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applications for stay, discharge, and variation of the worldwide freezing order refused.

Orders

  • Civil proceedings to continue; no stay granted.
  • Worldwide freezing order (WWFO) to continue until trial.