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 but followed the Crown's withdrawal of forfeiture proceedings before any evidence was heard; it does not operate as a binding judgment in rem precluding the SFO's claim. There is a good arguable case that the shares and their proceeds are recoverable property under POCA, and the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. The PFO was not obtained by material non-disclosure.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2119
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 (pfo) Under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Judgment on Application to Discharge PFO
Outcome
Application to discharge the property freezing order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Property Freezing Orders, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Bribery and Corruption, Dual Criminality, Res Judicata, Money Laundering
Criminal Law Civil Recovery Private International Law Proceeds of Crime Property Freezing Orders Recognition of Foreign Judgments Bribery and Corruption Dual Criminality +2 more

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 16 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 (pfo) Under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Judgment on Application to Discharge PFO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Canadian court's order operates as a judgment in rem precluding the SFO from pursuing civil recovery in England under POCA
  2. 2 Whether the dual criminality requirement under s.241 POCA is satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the PFO was obtained by material non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Canadian court's order was not a determination on the merits but followed the Crown's withdrawal of forfeiture proceedings before any evidence was heard; it does not operate as a binding judgment in rem precluding the SFO's claim. There is a good arguable case that the shares and their proceeds are recoverable property under POCA, and the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. The PFO was not obtained by material non-disclosure.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the property freezing order dismissed.

Orders

  • The property freezing order remains in force.
  • Directions for further proceedings on the civil recovery claim to be given.