National Crime Agency v Odewale & Anor [2018] EWHC 3903 (QB) (19 December 2018)

National Crime Agency v Odewale & Anor [2018] EWHC 3903 (QB) (19 December 2018)

The application was dismissed because there were strong grounds for suspicion that Mr. Odewale had substantial undisclosed assets likely available to Ms. Yadav to meet her living expenses, and therefore it was not just to permit use of frozen assets for this purpose. The applicant failed to dispel the suspicion of access to other assets, and the court resolved the doubt against her in accordance with the principles in Azam.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3903 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; First Defendant: Ayodele Odewale; Second Defendant: Sara Yadav
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Property Freezing Order (pfo) in Civil Recovery Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Variation of PFO to Allow Living Expenses Exclusion
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Order, Living Expenses Exclusion, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Asset Disclosure, Article 8 ECHR
Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Asset Forfeiture Property Freezing Order Living Expenses Exclusion Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Asset Disclosure Article 8 ECHR

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Ayodele Odewale

First Defendant

Sara Yadav

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Property Freezing Order (pfo) in Civil Recovery Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Variation of PFO to Allow Living Expenses Exclusion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary the Property Freezing Order to permit an exclusion for living expenses for the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has other available assets or access to assets to meet living expenses
  3. 3 Whether there are strong grounds for suspicion of undisclosed assets available to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because there were strong grounds for suspicion that Mr. Odewale had substantial undisclosed assets likely available to Ms. Yadav to meet her living expenses, and therefore it was not just to permit use of frozen assets for this purpose. The applicant failed to dispel the suspicion of access to other assets, and the court resolved the doubt against her in accordance with the principles in Azam.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No variation of the Property Freezing Order to allow exclusion for living expenses.