header-logo header-logo

06 June 2019 / Simon Davenport KC , Helen Pugh
Issue: 7843 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Whose cash is it anyway?

After a fêted introduction, UWOs have had a stop-start beginning. But are things about to change, ask Simon Davenport QC & Helen Pugh 

  • There are various grounds of challenge to UWOs including disputing the ownership, value, income and PEP requirements and disputing non-compliance.
  • A trap for the unsuspecting lies in the wide use to which UWO information and documents can be put.

In the last couple of weeks unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) have once again been making a splash in the news. The few details released by the National Crime Agency (NCA) about the latest UWOs are sufficiently headline grabbing: ‘a politically exposed person believed to be involved in serious crime’; ‘three residential properties in prime locations’; and ‘bought for more than £80m and held by offshore properties’. The current anonymity of the subject of the UWOs—and their nationality—merely adds to the interest.

Russia and CIS states, and their citizens resident in London, have been a particular target of recent political and media attention on corruption (and other matters).

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll