Kataria (t/a Westlec) v Bandi

Deliberately providing false information or doctored documents in response to an order requiring disclosure is a serious contempt of court. A party cannot justify altering bank statements by identifying only an alleged ultimate beneficiary or by omitting intermediate transactions. A continuing failure to disclose the true destination of payments, particularly after earlier false explanations, may constitute a separate breach. The seriousness of the contempt may justify immediate imprisonment where the conduct interferes with the administration of justice, even if there is no evidence that assets remain concealed. Candour after incontrovertible evidence has exposed the breach attracts limited credit. Sentences for several contempts should be imposed separately, but may run concurrently where the overall sentence properly reflects the totality.

The applicants were claimants who had obtained judgment in deceit proceedings against, among others, the respondent. Earlier orders required the respondent to identify the destination of monies obtained from them and to disclose bank statements and related documents for tracing purposes.

The respondent was alleged to have falsely identified payment recipients, doctored bank statements and failed to disclose the destination of payments from an account of a company controlled by him. Four of seven counts were dealt with first. The central issues were whether the alleged breaches were proved to the criminal standard and, if so, what sanction was appropriate.

1. The respondent was found guilty on all four counts. He had falsely stated that £3,000 had been paid to José Matthews when it had been paid in three instalments to William Hill. He had supplied deliberately doctored bank statements giving false information about payments totalling £136,445 to William Hill. He had falsely stated that £10,000 had been paid to Raj Kumar when it had been transferred to an ICICI Bank account. He had also failed to disclose the destination of certain payments listed in Schedule F to the later tracing order.
2. The explanations that the payments were ultimately for the benefit of other people did not justify altering bank statements or presenting false documents as genuine. The proper course was to disclose the actual payment route and explain the ultimate beneficiary. The deliberate failure to correct earlier false statements, when later disclosure was required, was itself a contempt.
3. The court treated the contempts as serious because deliberate false evidence and doctored documents undermine the administration of justice and impede the tracing exercise. The absence of evidence that the respondent continued to hold concealed assets meant that this was not the most serious category of case, but it did not make a suspended sentence appropriate.
4. Limited credit was given for admitting the essential facts, since the genuine bank statements supplied by the banks left those facts incapable of realistic dispute. The respondent was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. On technical correction, sentences of twelve months on counts two and four, and one month on counts one and three, were imposed concurrently. The applicants received indemnity costs, subject to the usual legal aid limitation.

Not stated in the judgment.