header-logo header-logo

24 June 2026
Issue: 8167 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Serious Fraud Office secures extra funds from convicted fraudster

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has secured an extra £492,000 from a confiscation order in 2009 against Alan Edwin Gardner, after uncovering additional assets including equity in two UK properties

Gardner was convicted in June 2009 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by Worcester Crown Court after an SFO investigation found he defrauded British expats in Jakarta by persuading them to invest in what was a fictitious scheme.

Paul Napper, SFO’s head of proceeds of crime and international assistance division, said Gardner ‘exploited the trust of British people far from home, convincing them their savings were in safe hands while he spent every penny’.

Issue: 8167 / Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll