Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid Bin Mahfouz & Ors v El-Rashid & Ors

Contempt of court must be proved to the criminal standard. The court must be sure that the respondent knew the terms of the order, acted or failed to act in breach of it, and knew the facts making the conduct a breach. Knowledge that the conduct amounted to contempt is unnecessary. An order requiring immediate disclosure may allow limited practical latitude where historical financial information is sought, but that latitude is exhausted where substantial information remains outstanding for a prolonged period. Allegations of ownership in contempt proceedings must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt; a finding that ownership is more likely than not is insufficient.

The claimants applied to commit the first defendant for contempt arising principally from alleged breaches of a Freezing Order and a Vehicle Order. The alleged breaches concerned failures to provide details of the dissipation of €35 million, disclose bank accounts, disclose six vehicles, provide access to vehicles, and identify the location of further vehicles.

The first defendant did not attend the hearing. The court considered whether the alleged breaches were proved to the criminal standard, whether the Vehicle Order had been sufficiently notified despite the absence of personal service, and whether the evidence established ownership of the six vehicles.

1. Contempt test. The court adopted the criminal standard of proof. It had to be sure that the respondent knew the terms of the order, acted or failed to act in a way involving breach, and knew the facts making the conduct a breach. It was unnecessary to prove knowledge that the conduct was contemptuous or an intention to breach the order, applying Marketmaker Technology and others v CMC Group and others [2009] EWHC 1445 (QB), Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm) and Holland and others v Fast Corporate Solutions and others [2014] EWHC 825 (QB).
2. The first defendant breached the Freezing Order by failing to provide full details of what had happened to the money and of the persons to whom it had been paid. Although some latitude could be allowed in interpreting the requirement to provide information immediately, that latitude had been exhausted long before the committal application.
3. The first defendant also breached the requirement to disclose all bank accounts. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the Europro and Euroint accounts were accounts over which he exercised de facto control or in respect of which the signatory habitually obeyed his instructions.
4. The allegation that the first defendant owned six vehicles was not proved. The evidence made ownership more likely than not, but the registered keepers were relatives and the court could not be sure that the first defendant was the owner.
5. Although the Vehicle Order had not been personally served, the court dispensed with personal service because the first defendant had notice of its terms through Mr Salamon. The first defendant breached the order by denying effective access to five vehicles and failing to disclose the location of five further vehicles, including a Fiat that remained missing.
6. The court was therefore sure that three categories of contempt were proved. The first defendant was to have an opportunity to make representations in mitigation before sentence was determined.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.