header-logo header-logo

27 May 2020 / Tom Forster KC
Issue: 7888 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Wealth beyond reach…for now

21418
No longer unexplained—unexplained wealth orders. Tom Forster QC provides an analysis of recent setbacks for the National Crime Agency
  • National Crime Agency v Baker and others: judgment relating to the discharge of unexplained wealth orders appealed.
  • Media attention: extraordinary allegations of unexplained wealth.
  • Procedure: a presumptive starting point and useful guidance.
  • The future: major weaknesses in UK’s defences against suspect funds should be addressed urgently.

On 8 April two prominent Kazakhstan nationals successfully persuaded the High Court to discharge three unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) (National Crime Agency v Baker and others [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin), [2020] All ER (D) 59 (Apr)).

The UWOs related to three London homes owned for the benefit of Nurali Aliyev and his Kazakh politician mother, Dariga Nazarbayeva. One property attracted particular media attention as it is located on The Bishops Avenue in Hampstead, London, so called ‘Billionaires Row’.

The National Crime Agency’s (NCA) case was that it suspected the properties were bought with funds embezzled by Mr Aliyev’s now dead

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll