Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) v Azam & Ors [2013] EWHC 1480 (QB) (03 June 2013)

Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) v Azam & Ors [2013] EWHC 1480 (QB) (03 June 2013)

Both applications for exclusion of funds from the property freezing order are refused because Azam failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his assets, particularly the deliberate omission of the BDL Luxembourg account, and the court is satisfied he has other undisclosed assets from which legal expenses can be met. Saunders Law Ltd's bill is not sufficiently substantiated as reasonable.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1480 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Serious Organised Crime Agency; First Respondent: Amir Azam; Interested Party: Saunders Law Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Order Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Variation of Property Freezing Order
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Order, Legal Expenses Exclusion, Asset Disclosure, Variation of Freezing Order
Criminal Law Civil Recovery Proceeds of Crime Property Freezing Order Legal Expenses Exclusion Asset Disclosure Variation of Freezing Order

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant

Amir Azam

First Respondent

Saunders Law Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Order Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications for Variation of Property Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property freezing order should be varied to exclude funds for past and future legal expenses
  2. 2 Whether Azam has undisclosed assets outside the scope of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether Saunders Law Ltd's claimed legal expenses are reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Both applications for exclusion of funds from the property freezing order are refused because Azam failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his assets, particularly the deliberate omission of the BDL Luxembourg account, and the court is satisfied he has other undisclosed assets from which legal expenses can be met. Saunders Law Ltd's bill is not sufficiently substantiated as reasonable.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications for variation of the property freezing order to exclude funds for legal expenses are dismissed.
  • Costs to be assessed in the absence of agreement.