JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor

The transfer of £1.1 million was intended by Mr Ablyazov as an outright gift to Madiyar, not as a trust or a transaction defrauding creditors. The evidence showed the transfer was for the purpose of obtaining an investor visa for Madiyar, and not substantially motivated by a desire to defeat creditors. BTA failed to prove the requisite purpose under section 423. Both the Trust Claim and Section 423 Claim failed.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Madiyar Ablyazov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; declaration granted to Second Defendant
Legal Topics
Resulting Trusts, Transactions at Undervalue, Limitation Periods, Fraud, Asset Recovery
Trusts Insolvency Civil Procedure Resulting Trusts Transactions at Undervalue Limitation Periods Fraud Asset Recovery

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Madiyar Ablyazov

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £1.1 million transfer was held on trust by Madiyar for Mr Ablyazov or was a gift
  2. 2 Whether the transfer should be set aside under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as a transaction defrauding creditors
  3. 3 Whether BTA's claim was statute barred

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of £1.1 million was intended by Mr Ablyazov as an outright gift to Madiyar, not as a trust or a transaction defrauding creditors. The evidence showed the transfer was for the purpose of obtaining an investor visa for Madiyar, and not substantially motivated by a desire to defeat creditors. BTA failed to prove the requisite purpose under section 423. Both the Trust Claim and Section 423 Claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; declaration granted to Second Defendant

Orders

  • BTA is not entitled to the relief sought.
  • Madiyar Ablyazov is entitled to a declaration that he is the owner of the Fund.