Key Facts
- •Jiangbo Hao and Wenjun Tian (Chinese nationals) applied for and were granted UK visas.
- •The NCA suspects the respondents of using proceeds from unlawful conduct in China to acquire UK properties and bank accounts.
- •A disclosure order was made against the respondents by Johnson J on 27 June 2023 under section 357 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- •Hao and Tian applied to set aside the disclosure order, alleging procedural irregularities and insufficient grounds for suspicion.
- •The NCA alleges that Hao and Tian were involved in a CNY 267.47 billion (£29 billion) fraud in China, with a portion (£1.2 billion) allegedly used to acquire UK assets.
- •The NCA's investigation involved examining Hao and Tian's financial transactions, property investments, and dealings with Dolfin Financial (UK) Limited.
- •The NCA's evidence relied heavily on information provided by Chinese authorities, prompting concerns about potential political motivation and human rights implications.
Legal Principles
Test for reasonable grounds to suspect (subjective and objective)
O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286 (HL)
Threshold for reasonable suspicion is low
Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942 (PC)
Disclosure orders are powerful tools but must respect human rights (Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR)
National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 255 (Admin)
Standard for setting aside order due to non-disclosure; substantial weight given to public interest
National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 255 (Admin); Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service [2005] EWCA Civ 746
Applications for disclosure orders can be made without notice or in private, but court must be satisfied it is proper to do so.
National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 255 (Admin)
Cumulative effect of multiple alleged non-disclosures considered
National Bank Trust v Yurov [2016] EWHC 1913 (Comm)
Outcomes
Set-aside application dismissed; Disclosure Order continued.
The court found sufficient reasonable grounds for suspicion, despite concerns about the source of information (Chinese authorities). Allegations of non-disclosure were deemed immaterial or not sufficiently grave to warrant setting aside the order.