Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) v Azam & Ors [2013] EWHC 1480 (QB) (03 June 2013)

Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) v Azam & Ors [2013] EWHC 1480 (QB) (03 June 2013)

Both applications to vary the PFO to exclude funds for legal expenses are refused because the respondent, Azam, has failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his assets, has deliberately omitted disclosure of a significant bank account, and the court is satisfied he has other undisclosed assets from which legal expenses can be paid. Additionally, the legal expenses claimed by Saunders are not sufficiently explained or justified as reasonable.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1480
Parties
Claimant: Serious Organised Crime Agency; First Respondent: Amir Azam; Interested Party: Saunders Law Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Property Freezing Order in Civil Recovery Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Order, Legal Expenses Exclusion, Asset Disclosure, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Civil Recovery Proceedings Practice Direction
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Property Freezing Order Legal Expenses Exclusion Asset Disclosure Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Civil Recovery Proceedings Practice Direction

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant

Amir Azam

First Respondent

Saunders Law Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Property Freezing Order in Civil Recovery Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property freezing order (PFO) should be varied to exclude funds for past and future legal expenses
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has undisclosed assets outside the PFO
  3. 3 Whether the legal expenses claimed are reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications to vary the PFO to exclude funds for legal expenses are refused because the respondent, Azam, has failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his assets, has deliberately omitted disclosure of a significant bank account, and the court is satisfied he has other undisclosed assets from which legal expenses can be paid. Additionally, the legal expenses claimed by Saunders are not sufficiently explained or justified as reasonable.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications to vary the property freezing order to exclude funds for legal expenses are dismissed.
  • Costs to be assessed in the absence of agreement.