National Crime Agency v Ayodele Odewale & Anor.

There are very strong grounds for suspecting that Mr. Odewale has substantial undisclosed assets available to Ms. Yadav to meet her living expenses. In those circumstances, it would not be just to permit the use of funds subject to the Property Freezing Order for her living expenses, and the application must be dismissed.

Parties: Claimant: National Crime Agency; First Defendant: Ayodele Odewale; Second Defendant: Sara Yadav
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 19 December 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil Recovery Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Vary Property Freezing Order
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Property Freezing Order, Living Expenses Exclusion, Asset Disclosure, Civil Recovery, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Property Freezing Order Living Expenses Exclusion Asset Disclosure Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Ayodele Odewale

First Defendant

Sara Yadav

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Proceedings / Ruling on Application to Vary Property Freezing Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether Ms. Yadav should be granted a variation of the Property Freezing Order to allow for living expenses exclusion
2 Whether there are undisclosed assets available to Ms. Yadav or Mr. Odewale that should preclude the exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed