The Director of Public Prosecutions v The Estate of Mildred Edwards (Deceased) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1388 (Admin)
National Crime Agency v Javanshir Feyziyev & Ors
23 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1562 (Admin)
High Court
The police froze millions of pounds worth of assets belonging to a wealthy couple, because they think the money comes from crime. They didn't tell the couple beforehand because they were worried the couple would hide the money. The judge agreed to do this secretly at first, to catch them.
Key Facts
- •The National Crime Agency (NCA) applied for a Property Freezing Order (PFO) against Javanshir Feyziyev, Parvana Feyziyeva, and Withers Trust Corporation Limited under section 245A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
- •The PFO targets approximately £50 million worth of assets, including 22 London properties, and a Liechtenstein bank account.
- •The first and second respondents are Azerbaijani nationals and politically exposed persons (PEPs).
- •The application was made without notice due to the risk of asset dissipation.
- •The NCA alleges that the assets represent proceeds of crime, including corruption, fraud, and money laundering.
- •The hearing was conducted in private to prevent asset dissipation and protect the respondents' rights given the allegations.
Legal Principles
Property Freezing Order (PFO) application under POCA section 245A
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Without notice applications permitted if notice would prejudice recovery
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Good arguable case threshold for PFO
Case law (Briedis, The Niedersachsen)
Definition of recoverable and associated property under POCA
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Global approach to assessing recoverable property
Case law (ARA v Jackson)
Inferences can be drawn from lack of lawful income, missing documents, lies, and asset handling
Case law (SOCA v Namli, Olupitan v ARA, SOCA v Gale, Muneka v Commissioners)
Court's discretion to grant PFO considering ECHR Articles 8 and Protocol 1
European Convention on Human Rights
Risk of dissipation as a relevant factor (not mandatory)
Case law (Nuttall v NCA)
Power to make exclusions from PFO
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Inherent power of the court to make ancillary orders to make a remedy effective
Senior Courts Act 1981, and case law (AJ Bekhor & Company v Bilton)
Outcomes
Property Freezing Order granted
The court found a good arguable case that the assets were recoverable property obtained through unlawful conduct and that there was a significant risk of dissipation. The application for the PFO was made without notice due to this risk of dissipation.
Hearing conducted in private
Publicity would defeat the object of the without-notice hearing and it would be unjust to the respondents to have a public hearing at this stage.
Order includes disclosure and service provisions
To ensure the effectiveness of the PFO and to facilitate the investigation.
Order to be published 14 days after service, unless respondents apply for restriction
To balance open justice with the need to prevent asset dissipation.
Similar Cases
National Crime Agency v Jiangbo Hao & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2240 (Admin)
London Capital & Finance Plc (in Administration) & Ors v Michael Andrew Thomson & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1684 (Ch)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Patrick Bijou
[2024] EWHC 2997 (Admin)
Marco Piacquadio & Anor (as Joint Liquidators of Smith & Partner LTD) v Luke Sparkes & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2518 (Ch)