Money Tracing Talk

"Webinar" by Alan Gough to members of TAGLaw in December 2008

A.        INTRODUCTION

1.         The subject of this talk is the tracing and recovery of money or assets that someone, usually an individual, has hidden or disguised so that they cannot be located and to which money or assets someone else has a claim of some sort.

2.         The types of claims that may exist are numerous.  The money may represent the proceeds of some fraud or con; maybe a partner in a business venture has dipped into the till and made off with partnership assets; the money may form part of the assets within a marriage which should be taken into account in a matrimonial break-up; perhaps a Trustee has diverted trust assets to his own use or maybe the money has been placed outside the reach of the creditors of a failing business.  It may even be a claim in damages where the Defendant has tried to protect his assets against the effect of an anticipated award.  These are but a few examples of the many types of cases that may give rise to tracing and recovery exercises.

3.         In all cases, in order to obtain assistance from foreign courts, the claim must at least be arguable.  It must be real and not fanciful but that is not to say that it has to be "cast iron".  For convenience I will call the person or the people hiding the disputed assets the Defendant.  Those tracing the assets are called the Claimant.

4.         We are not concerned here with the proceeds of crime other than fraud, embezzlement or confidence tricks.  Serious criminal activity such as drug trafficking and the funding of terrorists is usually pursued by Law Enforcement agencies and all countries have departments equipped to trace tax dodgers and their assets.

B.        THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

5.         It is hard to estimate the size of the global problem of money laundering. In August 1998, two major reports from the United Nations and OECD highlighted the magnitude of the task facing authorities around the world in their attempts to curtail money laundering.  The United Nations office for Drug Control & Crime Prevention Report entitled "Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering" identified international drug trading as the provenance of most of the illegal funds washing through offshore countries.  It estimated that at least $200 billion of drug money is laundered every year.  Other experts put the figure at nearer $600 billion.  Of this, the United Nations says, perhaps 0.25% is ever recovered.  That is only drug related money.  The OECD's Financial Action Task Force  on money laundering ("FATF") does not commit to a figure for money laundering generally, stating it probably amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. It is estimated that no more than 2% of money obtained by fraud is ever recovered.

6.         The authorities are worried that new technology and banking systems which allow cashless transactions are creating new and even more elusive ways for criminals to salt away their fraudulent gains.   "Megabyte Money", says the United Nations, "is a money launderer's dream".  With 700,000 wire transfers worth $2,000 billion every year the UN says it is a reasonable guess that 0.05% - 0.1% contains laundered funds.  Many of these figures are now out of date but it is difficult to obtain up to date estimates of the extent of international money laundering.  However, it certainly will not have decreased in recent years.  FAFT had labelled many offshore countries as being un-cooperative in the global move to prevent money laundering but by 2005 somewhat surprisingly all un-cooperative jurisdictions had been released from the black list.  This even includes the Cook Islands and Nigeria.

C.        THE INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE

7.         There now exists an international initiative. FATF produced 40 recommendations to provide a complete set of counter measurers against money laundering.  They have now been recognised, endorsed or adopted by most countries.  The onus is now put firmly on the financial services sector in its broadest sense (now including real estate agents and casinos) to report suspicious transactions.  The strategy has been to target those businesses which could be susceptible to the attention of the money launderer, as opposed to going after the sophisticated money launderer himself.  It is now difficult to set up a bank account or open a line of credit or engage a lawyer or even to sell a property without the fullest disclosure as to identification of the customer and the source of his funds.  Nevertheless the money laundering continues and the offshore world is best suited to assist the serious launderer of money.                                                                                                                

D.       THE OFFSHORE JURISDICTIONS

8.         So, what steps can the Defendant take to disguise, hide or put out of reach    his ill-gotten gains?

9.         An initial and obvious step would be to get the assets out of the jurisdiction where the claim arises.  This will put the Claimant to a great deal of trouble, even if he has secured a Judgment or Award.  The Claimant will have to trace the money to its new location.  Does the new location recognise or enforce foreign judgments?  Does it have an effective and professional judicial system?  Is there a will to help foreign claimants?  Do not assume even these days that there is.  There may be a raft of judicial remedies available and a stated policy to provide assistance but, in practice, the policy is not always put into effect.

10.        This is why in part the offshore world is attractive to the Defendant.  So where is "offshore"?  Traditionally it can be divided into two parts, although there are new "offshore" jurisdictions sprouting up all the time.  First are the old European bastions of bank secrecy and "discretion" - Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.  Where possible these countries have always stayed neutral in any conflict.  They prefer to stay friends to all sides and therefore to profit.  For that they have come in for considerable criticism.  Much of the Nazi plundered wealth - Hitler's gold as it came to be called - was secreted in Switzerland.  A great deal has had to be repatriated recently to the victims of the holocaust and their families.  The world in the 21st century will not have it on its conscience.   The second and newer offshore jurisdictions are the offshore islands.  These usually take the form of islands off the coast of some of the more established western jurisdictions.  Examples are the Caribbean Islands and Bermuda (serving the United States), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (serving the United Kingdom) and Cyprus which appears to accommodate the older Mediterranean countries, such as Turkey, the former Eastern Block and the Middle Eastern states.  Cyprus is the preferred location for Russian money.  Other centres are based in the Pacific, including the Cook Islands.   All in all there are estimated to be about 65 offshore centres.  These offshore islands largely developed as tax havens (now deemed an unacceptable description). They have come to call themselves international offshore financial centres.  They have mostly grown up since the early 60s and have developed financial services as their main economic product.  Most of these jurisdictions were previously reliant upon traditional industries such as agriculture, tourism, etc.  The conversion to financial services in its broadest sense enabled them to find a niche in the global economy which would otherwise be unattainable by traditional economic means.  These offshore islands have become expert and sophisticated in the use of technological and speedy international communications.

11.        So, apart from offering a friendly jurisdiction away from the seat of the dispute, the baying creditors or the deserted wife, what other attractions do the offshore jurisdictions offer?  Typically they have low income tax and no inheritance or capital gains tax.  This has, in most cases, attracted elderly residents who brought in wealth and provided the early foundations of the financial services industry.  As these people were often white collar fugitives from unsympathetic tax jurisdictions they needed bank secrecy and so these new financial centres put bank secrecy at the core of their legislative agenda.  Other useful products followed.  The English Trust has been part of English law for centuries and it recognises the concept that property can be held by a Trustee for the benefit of another's heirs.  This was a device often used by the aristocracy to prevent the destruction of wealth by delinquent offspring.  The concept of the trust has, however, been honed into what is effectively a sleight of hand.   The legitimate trust mechanism has morphed into the asset protection trust.  The name barely disguises the more often than not illegitimate purpose of the vehicle.  It has become little more than a conjuror's trick.

12.        A further product quick to be developed by the offshore world is the concept of the nominee company.  Here an asset owning company is run by directors who have no interest in the company whatsoever, other than to receive an annual fee.  The owners of the company - the shareholders - are also nominees.  There is usually no requirement to declare publicly that the shareholders hold the shares on trust for some other person - the true owner.  Millions of dollars can be held offshore by nominee companies, often owned ultimately by a trust, the beneficiaries of which appear, on the face of it, to be at the discretion of the Trustees who will invariably follow the directions given in a confidential Letter of Wishes.

13.        It is not difficult to see, with these simple mechanisms available, how difficult it is for the claimant to follow the money offshore. These offshore facilities coupled with the speed at which money can be moved through the banking system have provided the money launderer with an arsenal of weaponry with which to fox his pursuers.  Another mechanism not unique to the offshore world is to wash the illegitimate money through a seemly legitimate business - often one that deals with large volumes of cash, such as a casino.  Nevertheless, despite these advantages to the launderer, remedies are available and techniques and strategies can be adopted which will often give rise to substantial recoveries.

E.        TRACING WEAPONS

14.        The facilities available to the Launderer appear to be daunting but the tracer of assets is not without an arsenal of weapons to combat the ingenious schemes of the Launderer. These include, in most offshore jurisdictions, the following High Court Judicial Orders:

15.        Mareva Injunctions (or Freezing Injunctions)

(a)        These are issued by a High Court Judge and prevent a Defendant dealing with his assets so as to defeat the Claimant's claims. For example, it stops him using money in bank accounts, taking assets out of the country or dealing with assets without the Court's permission.  It is usually sought at the commencement of proceedings.

(b)        It is perhaps worth reflecting upon why Mareva Injunctions sprang up as they did.  English legal procedure was devised to enable disputes to be decided.  The centrepiece of the system was the trial, a climatic and theatrical event for which all previous interlocutory process was a preparation.  In the 1960's, however, it became apparent that civil law remedies were inadequate to deal with cases in which there was often no serious dispute; the problem was simply the enforcement of the law against a party who was determined to evade it.  The Mareva was a response in 1975 to the use of the one-ship company registered in Liberia with directors in the feudal Island of  Sark and a bank account in Zurich.  Together with other Orders the Mareva injunction created a new form of litigation.  Instead of the interlocutory process being ancillary to a trial, it became in many cases an end in itself.  Often it was extremely unlikely that the matter would come to trial at all.  If the interlocutory orders were successful in securing the goods or freezing the assets, the Defendant submitted to judgment and that was an end of the matter.  This represented a radical change of role and it is therefore not surprising that judges over the past 30 years or so have been feeling their way to an adequate system of rules and guidelines.

(c)        To obtain a Mareva & Freezing Injunction a Claimant previously had to file an action and show (he may do so ex parte in urgent matters) that:-

(i)         the Defendant has assets in or (for a world wide injunction) outside the country;

(ii)         the Claimant has a good arguable claim against the Defendant;

(iii)        the Defendant is likely to dissipate his assets.

(d)        The requirement to file an action turned out often to be a major hurdle.  The initial cases of Mareva injunctions arose in proceedings in which the Claimant was claiming substantive relief by an action.  But could relief be given when the only factor connecting the case with the offshore jurisdiction was the presence of assets within the jurisdiction of the Court?  The law has now recognised the previous difficulty and now an injunction can be obtained in most offshore jurisdictions if there are proceedings elsewhere (even if they have not been filed).

(e)        In Channel Tunnel Group Ltd -v- Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd, the House of Lords recognised that the court had jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief in substantive proceedings brought in England even though those proceedings had to be stayed in order for the claim to be decided by Arbitration.

(f)         Also, in most jurisdictions now the Court is empowered to grant free-standing Mareva relief in relation to arbitral proceedings wherever the seat of the arbitration is or even if no seat has been designated or determined.

(g)        These developments have recognised that the interests of justice may require assets to be preserved by an Order made in one jurisdiction whilst the merits of a substantive claim to the money is determined in another.

(h)        Mareva relief granted worldwide

                        The Courts have now departed from the original rule that Mareva relief would be granted only in respect of assets situated within the jurisdiction.  This change in practice has given rise to the need to consider the extent (if any) to which third parties are bound to respect a Mareva order in so far as it applies to assets abroad.

(i)         Carrying on business and making payments out of assets subject to Mareva relief

                        As a consequence of the emergence of the Mareva jurisdiction the Courts have laid down the principles which are to be applied in deciding whether or not assets are to be released from a Mareva injunction to be used for a particular purpose.  Normally the course of an ordinary business will not be interrupted.  Living and legal expenses are allowed and a limit is usually applied to the injunction.

(j)         Effects on third parties

                        The granting of Mareva relief is liable to have an impact on third parties who deal with the Defendant or are involved in dealing with assets falling within the scope of the order.  The Courts have evolved rules of practice concerning undertakings to be provided by the Claimant so that if the claim fails the Claimant is bound to pay damages.  Security is now often ordered. They have also laid down principles as to the effect of Mareva relief on third parties and the extent to which their interests are to be taken into account when a Court decides whether to grant or continue Mareva relief.

(k)         Other common law jurisdictions

                        The Mareva jurisdiction is applied in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including Australia, Bermuda, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Gibraltar, Jersey, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Isle of Man, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland.             

(l)         The effect of the Mareva Injunction is limited

·                     It gives the Claimant no proprietary rights.

·                     Innocent third parties can still obtain good title.

·                     Anyone with an existing charge or encumbrance will keep his security.

·                     Bona fide judgment creditors can still enforce their judgments.    

(m)       Unlimited Orders

                        Unlimited Orders are rarely justifiable in ordinary Mareva cases.  But in tracing cases, for example where the Claimant is seeking to trace into the Defendant's bank accounts the proceeds of an alleged fraud, it may be appropriate for the Court to place no financial limit on the injunction, either because the full quantum of the Claimant's claim is unascertainable, or because it is just and equitable that all assets should be preserved until investigations have been carried out with a view to ascertaining which are arguably subject to a trust and which are not.  Similar considerations may apply where the Claimant is claiming for the breach of intellectual property rights (eg breach of copyright, infringement of trade marks or patents), where the extent of the Claimant's claim may be impossible to predict and the number of infringing copies in circulation is unknown.

(n)       General Principles & Safeguards in ex-parte (without notice) Relief

(i)         First, any Applicant to the Court for ex parte relief must act in the utmost good faith and disclose to the Court all matters which are material to be taken into account by the Court in deciding whether or not to grant relief ex parte, and if so, on what terms.  This is a general principle which applies to all applications for ex parte relief.  But it applies with special force to applications for Mareva Injunctions and Search (formerly Anton Piller) Relief which by their nature are particularly liable to cause substantial prejudice to a Defendant or other parties.  Therefore the applicant is permitted to apply ex parte only on the basis that he has complied with this duty.  The duty extends to placing before the Court all matters which are relevant to the Court's assessment of the application and it is no answer to a complaint of non disclosure that if the relevant matters had been placed before the Court the decision would have been the same.  All matters which are relevant to the "weighing operation" that the Court has to make in deciding whether or not to grant the Order must be disclosed.  In the Commercial Court Guide the duty is described as that "of the applicant and those acting for him" and as being to make "full disclosure …." of all matters relevant to the application and whether the Court should grant the relief asked: this includes disclosure to the Court of matters which are or may be adverse to the applicant.

(ii)         Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that the Claimant carefully considers the nature of the cause of action and the facts on which it is based before formulating the application.  A thorough check should be made to ensure that all defences available to the Defendant are identified and fairly summarised in the supporting Affidavit.

(o)        Effects of non-disclosure or material misrepresentation

                        On ex parte applications not involving Mareva or Search Orders, where there has been non-disclosure, courts have simply set aside the ex parte relief, leaving the application to make fresh application.  In those circumstances the court has considered that the applicant has been deprived of any advantage obtained by the granting of the ex parte relief.  The position is different in relation to Freezing and Search Orders because the applicant has in effect struck prematurely and the Defendant's position might have been adversely affected by the granting of ex parte relief.  In such non disclosure cases the Order will almost certainly be discharged.

16.        Ancillary Orders

            The Courts have also used statutory powers as the basis for the jurisdiction to make a wide variety of different types of order in aid of Mareva relief. A Defendant may be required to give information to the Claimant about specified assets, to assist the Claimant in ensuring that the Mareva relief will be effective in safeguarding the relevant assets.  That information may have to be provided on Affidavit or by discovery of documents, and the Defendant may be ordered to attend the Court for cross-examination concerning the information provided.  The Defendant may be ordered to provide the Claimant with authority to ask banks about assets and he may, in an extreme case, be ordered to surrender his passport so that he cannot leave the country.           

17.        Anton Piller Orders (or Search Orders)

(a)        I have already mentioned Search Orders.  Such an Order is usually made ex parte and allows a Claimant to enter and search the Defendant's premises (supervised by an independent lawyer) and to remove specified documents or obtain information (e.g. from computers).  It is used particularly in the intellectual property field to seize protected material produced in breach of copyright.  The Claimant must persuade the Court that:-

(i)         he has a very strong case;

(ii)         the potential or actual damage to his interest is very serious;

(iii)        there is clear evidence that the Defendant holds incriminating material & he may dispose of it;

(iv)        the harm likely to be caused to the Defendant will be not excessive.


(b)        It is very extreme relief because, if it is complied with, it will result in the representatives entering premises (eg a private house) and searching them and, what is more, doing so before the Defendant has put his side of the case to the Court and in circumstances capable of causing great affront and serious loss of reputation.  It has been described as one of the law's two nuclear weapons, the other being Mareva relief.  These Orders are now difficult to obtain.

(c)        The standard form Anton Piller order (or Search Order) is an order made against the Defendant. The Order orders the Defendant, to allow the persons mentioned in the Order to enter the premises described in the Order and to search for, examine and remove or copy the articles specified in the Order. The Defendant must allow those persons to remain on the premises until the search is complete, and to re-enter the premises on the same or the following day in order to complete the search.  The standard form of Order is an order in personam directed to the Defendant.

18.        Gagging Orders

(a)        In certain cases it may be necessary for an injunction to be granted restraining those served with the order or others from informing third parties of the existence of the proceedings or the fact that an order has been made. Such Orders are called Gagging Orders.                   

(b)        This type of injunction may be required so as to give the Claimant time to use information obtained through execution of the order so as to secure assets or preserve evidence located elsewhere.  Thus an order can be made which is to be executed at particular premises in the expectation that, as a result, further information will become available to the Claimant enabling him to preserve evidence or property located elsewhere.  An injunction restraining those served with the order from informing those third parties of the existence of the proceedings or the fact that an order has been made will be of very limited duration.

19.        Tracing Orders

            These Orders are often granted upon an application for a Mareva Injunction being made and usually require officers, corporate administrators and others in control of nominee companies and/or trustees to give an Affidavit as to the funds within their control and to hand over documents relating to those funds.  This breaks down the confidentiality shield.  This is often a better way of obtaining information than a Search Order, although truthful answers are not always given.  The officers can often be cross examined on the evidence they give.

20.        Norwich Pharmical Orders

(a)        These Orders enable the Claimant to go to a possibly innocent Third Party (at least someone who is not a party to the proceedings) and obtain information and documents relevant to the tracing in the possession of that party.  It is often the case that corporate administrators will have documents and information but may not be tainted with the wrongdoing of the Launderer.

(b)        In these cases Norwich Pharmical is appropriate. It does not have the effect of stating that the recipient of the Order is necessarily innocent.  When documents are perused it may turn out that they are culpable.

(c)        Confidentiality is no protection to a Norwich Pharmical Order.

(d)        If a person, through no fault of his own, gets ‘mixed up' in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing, he may not incur any personal liability, but he comes under an obligation to assist the person wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers, per Lord Reid in Norwich Pharmical -v- Customs & Excise Commissioners.  The Courts have adopted and extended this principle in the case of tracing actions so as to grant interlocutory orders at any stage in proceedings requiring those who may have information (including documents) about what has happened to particular assets, and who have been involved in their disposal, to provide that information to the Claimant.  This has included Orders made against banks for disclosure of information about assets.  When the Claimant has the right to shares in a company and the assets in the company have gone missing, the Court can disregard the corporate veil and grant orders designed to reveal what has happened to the company's assets or their proceeds.

21.        Receivership Orders

(a)        These are becoming more popular because they have an extra-territorial effect which sometimes makes them preferable to Mareva Injunctions.  Also, the Receivership Order can be tailor-made to suit the circumstances.  The Receiver of the assets of the Company or Trust only has the powers specifically bestowed upon him by the Court.  We have encountered Receivership Orders which have been extremely limited to specific assets or accounts.  It is a common belief that Companies or Trusts are put into Receivership.  This is not so.  It is the assets of the Companies or the assets of the Trusts which are affected by the Receivership Order.  Receivers are often required to post a bond and the applicant is required often to give an undertaking in damages.  The advantage of a Receivership Order is that the Receiver is Receiver of all assets wherever situated in the world.  It may be that the Order will have to be "ratified" by a foreign jurisdiction where assets lie (especially if it is to affect real estate).  It is hard to get a Receivership Order ex parte.

(b)        The power of the Court to appoint a Receiver pre judgement by interlocutory order is exercisable whenever it is ‘right or just' to do so.  In particular that power is exercisable even when the Claimant does not claim any proprietary interest in the relevant assets or any legal or equitable entitlement to have them dealt with in a particular way.  Thus it is sufficient that the Claimant has a claim against the Defendant, even though that claim is unrelated to the assets sought to be made subject to the appointment of a Receiver, provided that in all the circumstances of the case it is ‘just and convenient' to appoint a Receiver.  These circumstances could be, for example, that the Defendant may deal with the assets so as to frustrate enforcement of an eventual judgment against him.  Here the appointment of a Receiver may be made either in support of a Mareva injunction or independently of the granting of Mareva relief.  That it is not necessary for the Claimant to claim some interest in, or right over or in respect of the assets to justify the appointment of a Receiver has been put beyond doubt by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Derby & Co. Limited -v- Weldon.

F.         A TYPICAL CASE

(1) A United Kingdom company, X Limited, has be defrauded.  It's Financial Director has discovered that an I.T. Manager has been transferring funds from one of the Company accounts to an offshore bank.  It all falls into place as the I.T. Manager has been living it up and has been rumoured to have bought a villa in the South of France.  The Finance Director rummages through his I.T. Manager's Office and discovers a note referring to an offshore company, registered in the Isle of Man, Moneybags Limited. The I.T. Manager still works for the Company and is unaware that he is under suspicion.

(2) Searches will reveal that the Isle of Man Company is run by nominees provided by a Corporate Service Provider.  The property in the South of France may be harder to locate.  Armed with the initial note, and any other information the Finance Director can obtain, he goes to the Isle of Man and instructs lawyers to apply for a Mareva Injunction over the assets in the Isle of Man and world-wide.  A local injunction is obtained and includes a tracing Order so that the local directors have to hand over all documents and do Affidavits.  When examined the documents show another Company to exist and a bank account at Barclays Bank.  The other Company has in its file photographs of a property in the South of France.

(3) A search is done in the South of France, the property identified and proceedings taken there to arrest the villa.  Moneybags Limited's bank accounts in the Isle of Man are examined under an Order obtained for that purpose.  So the IT Manager remains ignorant of what is happening. There is a Gagging Order in place. All monies have been cleared out of the account but it can be seen that they have been transferred to Loot 2 Limited, a Jersey Company.  The funds have been transferred to Barclays Bank in St. Helier, Jersey.  The Gagging Order protects the position so far and lawyers are instructed in Jersey to obtain a Mareva Injunction and a Disclosure Order over the Jersey bank.  A Norwich Pharmical Order is obtained against the Company Administrators. The money is discovered in the bank.

All of this could equally have been done with a Receiver (if the Court would deal with it ex parte).

            The Other Side of the Coin

(4) The I.T. Manager protests his innocence and attacks the original Mareva Injunction because it was not disclosed (as was know to the Finance Director) that the I.T. Manager had recently inherited a great deal of money from his grandfather.  The Mareva Injunction is discharged and all other Orders fall with it.  Consequently the injunctions obtained elsewhere are discharged.  Immediately fresh applications are made with full disclosure of the inheritance and the injunctions are re-instated.  Fresh attacks are made on the Orders and so it goes on.

G.        CONSIDER THE BALANCE OF POWER

(1)        On his side the Launderer has:-

·            possibly unlimited wealth and all that can buy, including lawyers, accountants and bankers;

·            modern banking - speed and ease of money movement;

·            potential for violence and intimidation;

·            Cyber Space;

·            uncertain law re: e.g. Trusts.

(2)        The Asset Tracer has:-

             international initiatives to combat laundering;

             new regulation in offshore jurisdictions;

             technology;

             the arrogance of the Launderer.

(3) The film "The Usual Suspects" portrays a master criminal Kaiser Soze. Only his assistant knows what he looks like.  He is anonymous, has no social connections or aspirations.  He moves around in disguise and commits his crimes through intermediaries and middle men who only ever work for him once.

In the laundering world this man would succeed.

(4) The Asset Tracer needs paper, documents, identities, letters of instructions, bank statements, signatures.  Only the arrogance of the Launderer - the belief he cannot be caught - will be his undoing.  I have never been involved in a case where there was no paper trail.  The less paper the greater the chance that the Asset Tracer will fail.

A man with an alias, giving occasional instructions by public telephone, never using the same people or banks twice, would always escape.

(5)        A further weapon is the Regulatory Factor. In most jurisdictions Corporate and Trust Service Providers have to be licensed and are therefore regulated.  In the Isle of Man there are routine 'audits' and random checks.  Delinquent officers can be removed from organisations or disqualified (by the court) from acting as Corporate officers.  Even worse, they can go to prison if convicted of a money laundering offence.

H.        SOME TIPS

1.         Move quickly.

2.         Make full disclosure on ex parte applications.

3.         Go offshore yourself - some jurisdictions are laid back in the extreme.

4.        Some Courts will deal with local matters, such as trespass before dealing  with international injunctions.

5.         You may have to "educate" the local lawyers. Keep at them.

6.         Be imaginative.  The Launderer is like a magician.  He conceives the Scheme from his imagination.

7.         Have regard to the Launderer's languages.  He is unlikely to go where he cannot speak the language.                       

Good Hunting!


Article posted: 11/12/2008