The Serious Fraud Office v Saleh [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB) (21 July 2015)

The Serious Fraud Office v Saleh [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB) (21 July 2015)

The Canadian court's order was not a determination on the merits regarding whether the shares were proceeds of crime or offence-related property, as the forfeiture application was withdrawn before evidence was heard. Therefore, the order does not operate as issue estoppel or res judicata in this jurisdiction. The SFO has established a good arguable case that the shares and their proceeds are recoverable property under POCA, and dual criminality is satisfied. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge the PFO.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2119 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Serious Fraud Office; Respondent: Ikram Mahamet Saleh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order / Post Interim Order, Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application to discharge the property freezing order dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Dual Criminality, Bribery and Corruption, Issue Estoppel
Criminal Law Civil Recovery International Law Proceeds of Crime Recognition of Foreign Judgments Dual Criminality Bribery and Corruption Issue Estoppel

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serious Fraud Office

Claimant

Ikram Mahamet Saleh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order / Post Interim Order, Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property freezing order should be discharged in light of a Canadian court order
  2. 2 Whether the Serious Fraud Office can establish the shares are recoverable property under POCA
  3. 3 Whether dual criminality requirements are satisfied under POCA

Ratio Decidendi

The Canadian court's order was not a determination on the merits regarding whether the shares were proceeds of crime or offence-related property, as the forfeiture application was withdrawn before evidence was heard. Therefore, the order does not operate as issue estoppel or res judicata in this jurisdiction. The SFO has established a good arguable case that the shares and their proceeds are recoverable property under POCA, and dual criminality is satisfied. There was no material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge the PFO.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the property freezing order dismissed

Orders

  • Property freezing order to continue
  • Part 8 claim for Civil Recovery Order transferred to Queen's Bench Division for directions