Stanford Asset Holdings Ltd and another v AfrAsia Bank Ltd (Mauritius)
[2023] UKPC 35
Attorney General v Jonathan Reid and 3 others (Bahamas)
24 September 2024
[2024] UKPC 30
Privy Council
A mistake in a date on a legal document led to a restraint order being cancelled. The higher court decided that the mistake wasn't important enough to cancel the order, and sent the case back for a proper hearing.
Key Facts
- •Boeing was defrauded of US$2,289,488.80.
- •Funds were transferred through accounts in the USA and The Bahamas.
- •A MLAT restraint order was obtained in The Bahamas under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000 (POCA), as modified by the Proceeds of Crime (Designated Countries and Territories) Order 2001 (Modified POCA).
- •A domestic restraint order was discharged due to delay.
- •The MLAT restraint order was discharged at first instance and the appeal dismissed in the Court of Appeal on grounds of material non-disclosure.
- •The alleged material non-disclosure was a typographical error in the MLAT request regarding the closure date of Sun Trust accounts.
Legal Principles
Duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications for restraint orders.
Director of the Serious Fraud Office v A [2007] EWCA Crim 1927; In re Stanford International Bank Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 137; Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service [2005] EWCA Civ 746
Public interest considerations in restraint order cases.
Jennings v CPS; Director of the Serious Fraud Office v A
Consequences of material non-disclosure in restraint order applications; the court has discretion whether to discharge the order.
Brink’s Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350
Principles of non-joinder.
Not explicitly sourced, but discussed in relation to the necessity of joining CWI.
Test for determining whether an appeal is moot.
Not explicitly sourced but discussed in relation to the appeal.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Court of Appeal erred in finding material non-disclosure as the date discrepancy was an obvious typographical error. The Court of Appeal misdirected itself by applying principles from commercial disputes rather than considering the public interest. The appeal was not moot.
Remitted to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal should adjudicate on the merits of the appeal on the issues of abuse of process and lack of nexus.
Similar Cases
Justin Ramoon v Governor of the Cayman Islands and another (Cayman Islands)
[2023] UKPC 9
General Legal Council v Michael Lorne (Jamaica)
[2024] UKPC 12
National Crime Agency v Javanshir Feyziyev & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1562 (Admin)
Sancus Financial Holdings Ltd and others v Holm and another (British Virgin Islands)
[2022] UKPC 41