National Crime Agency (NCA) v Simkus & Ors

National Crime Agency (NCA) v Simkus & Ors

Orders may be made without notice and on paper if justified; absence of reasons does not invalidate orders; disclosure duty must be fulfilled but inadvertent non-disclosure not 'appalling' does not require discharge; DOs are not too wide under pre-2015 law; civil recovery proceedings are not an abuse of process even...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: National Crime Agency; Respondent: Gediminas Simkus; Respondent: Volodymyr Kurach; Respondent: Lina Kurach; Respondent: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Respondent: Arshid Khan; Respondent: Asif Khan; Respondent: Asad Khan; Respondent: Cyber Property Developments Limited; Respondent: Mohammed Sadiq Ghulam; Respondent: Michael Anthony Jardine; Respondent: Marcia Teresa Jardine; Respondent: Dominic Luke Michael Jardine; Respondent: Teresa Elizabeth Jardine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge or Vary Orders Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Ruling on Applications to Discharge/vary Property Freezing Orders and Disclosure Orders
Outcome
Applications to discharge or vary orders dismissed; orders continued.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Disclosure Orders, Property Freezing Orders, Without Notice Applications, Duty of Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Re Litigation, Judicial Reasoning, Costs
Civil Recovery Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Administrative Law Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 Disclosure Orders Property Freezing Orders Without Notice Applications +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Applicant

Gediminas Simkus

Respondent

Volodymyr Kurach

Respondent

Lina Kurach

Respondent

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Respondent

Arshid Khan

Respondent

Asif Khan

Respondent

Asad Khan

Respondent

Cyber Property Developments Limited

Respondent

Mohammed Sadiq Ghulam

Respondent

Michael Anthony Jardine

Respondent

Marcia Teresa Jardine

Respondent

Dominic Luke Michael Jardine

Respondent

Teresa Elizabeth Jardine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge or Vary Orders Under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 / Ruling on Applications to Discharge/vary Property Freezing Orders and Disclosure Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are Property Freezing Orders (PFOs) and Disclosure Orders (DOs) liable to be set aside if granted without a hearing or reasons?
  2. 2 Is a DO too wide if it requires disclosure relating to unspecified property?
  3. 3 Is a DO liable to be set aside if evidence is not served or is redacted?

Ratio Decidendi

Orders may be made without notice and on paper if justified; absence of reasons does not invalidate orders; disclosure duty must be fulfilled but inadvertent non-disclosure not 'appalling' does not require discharge; DOs are not too wide under pre-2015 law; civil recovery proceedings are not an abuse of process even if criminal confiscation was declined; procedural safeguards exist via right to apply to vary/discharge.

Court Disposition

Applications to discharge or vary orders dismissed; orders continued.

Orders

  • Disclosure Orders and Property Freezing Orders to remain in force.
  • Respondents may apply to vary or discharge orders as per procedural directions.