PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors [2019] EWHC 2061 (Comm) (29 July 2019)

PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Mints & Ors [2019] EWHC 2061 (Comm) (29 July 2019)

The court found that the claimants provided solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the defendants, based on the nature, scale, and manner of the alleged fraudulent transactions and subsequent asset movements. The evidence of dissipation was recent and substantial, and the delay in seeking relief was explained and did not negate the risk. Therefore, the continuation of the worldwide freezing order was justified.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2061 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant: PJSC Otkritie Bank Financial Corporation; Defendant: Boris Mints; Defendant: Dmitry Mints; Defendant: Alexander Mints; Defendant: Igor Mints
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (application for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Worldwide freezing order continued (subject to undertakings) against the 1st to 3rd defendants; 4th defendant did not oppose continuation.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Order, Risk of Dissipation, Delay in Seeking Relief, Fraudulent Transactions, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Fraud Worldwide Freezing Order Risk of Dissipation Delay in Seeking Relief Fraudulent Transactions Asset Tracing

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant

PJSC Otkritie Bank Financial Corporation

Claimant

Boris Mints

Defendant

Dmitry Mints

Defendant

Alexander Mints

Defendant

Igor Mints

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (application for Continuation of Worldwide Freezing Order) / Return Date Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets justifying continuation of a worldwide freezing order
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking the freezing order should preclude relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants provided solid evidence of a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by the defendants, based on the nature, scale, and manner of the alleged fraudulent transactions and subsequent asset movements. The evidence of dissipation was recent and substantial, and the delay in seeking relief was explained and did not negate the risk. Therefore, the continuation of the worldwide freezing order was justified.

Court Disposition

Worldwide freezing order continued (subject to undertakings) against the 1st to 3rd defendants; 4th defendant did not oppose continuation.

Orders

  • Continuation of worldwide freezing order (WFO) against 1st to 3rd defendants
  • WFO replaced by undertakings of similar effect