National Crime Agency v Hussain & Ors

The court granted an unexplained wealth order (UWO) under sections 362A–362I of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and an interim freezing order (IFO) under section 362J in respect of property held or controlled by Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain and various corporate vehicles he controlled. The judge applied the statutory tests in section 362B (holding, value, income and either PEP or serious crime requirements) and concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent held the properties, that their combined value exceeded £50,000, that known lawful income appeared insufficient to have obtained them, and that there were reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in serious crime or connection with persons so involved. The judge also concluded it was necessary and proportionate to make the IFO to avoid frustration of any subsequent civil recovery order. The court addressed privacy of UWO/IFO hearings under CPR r 39.2 and the Practice Direction, finding subparagraphs (a), (c), (e) and (g) engaged and that the hearing should be conducted in private.

This is a first instance judgment giving full reasons for making an unexplained wealth order and related interim freezing order in proceedings brought by the National Crime Agency (NCA) against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain and six corporate respondents wholly owned or controlled by him.

Background and parties

• The NCA applied without notice for a UWO on 24 May 2019 and for an IFO on 10 July 2019. The respondent had previously been granted anonymity by Lang J but the anonymity order was discharged in this judgment. The respondents did not attend the hearing.
• The properties at issue comprised eight freehold or leasehold properties registered at HM Land Registry and held either in Mr Hussain’s name or through corporate vehicles wholly owned or controlled by him.

Nature of the application and issues

• The NCA sought a UWO under Part 8 of POCA (sections 362A–362I) and an IFO under sections 362J–362L. The judge framed the decision by reference to the statutory requirements: (i) the Holding Requirement, (ii) the Value Requirement, (iii) the Income Requirement and (iv) either the PEP Requirement or the Serious Crime Requirement in section 362B. For the IFO, the statutory necessity test under section 362J(2) was engaged (risk of frustration of a subsequent civil recovery order).
• The court also considered whether the hearing and associated documents should be private under CPR r 39.2 and the revised Practice Direction for Part 8 POCA applications.

Court’s reasoning and findings

• On the Holding Requirement the judge accepted that Mr Hussain held the properties either as registered owner or through effective control of the corporate owners (section 362H) and that reasonable grounds existed to believe he held the properties.
• The Value Requirement was met because the total purchase and estimated market value of the properties exceeded the statutory £50,000 threshold.
• On the Income Requirement the court accepted the NCA’s evidence that known lawful income declared by Mr Hussain appeared insufficient to have funded the portfolio, and that seed capital for several purchases appeared to come from unidentified third-party sources.
• On the Serious Crime Requirement the judge accepted there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Hussain acted as a professional enabler/money launderer for organised crime groups (facilitating serious offences) and that persons connected with him were involved in serious criminality; the court applied the tests in the Serious Crime Act 2007 and relevant cross-references (including section 1122 CTA 2010 for connection).
• The judge found it necessary and proportionate to make the IFO to prevent imminent dissipation (in particular a notified proposed transfer of one property) and because risk of realisation of other properties made freezing all listed properties appropriate.
• On privacy, the court held that the statutory scheme and Practice Direction create a strong presumption in favour of private hearings of UWO/IFO applications and that CPR r 39.2(3)(a),(c),(e) and (g) applied: publicity would defeat the object of the hearing, confidential personal financial information was involved, it would be unjust to the respondent for the hearing to be public (applications were made without notice), and other reasons made a private hearing necessary.

Disposition

• The court made the UWO against Mr Hussain under section 362A and an IFO under section 362J against Mr Hussain and the corporate respondents. The judge considered the orders proportionate and imposed statutory safeguards (privilege protections, use limitations and presumption mechanics under sections 362C–362F).

This first instance court made the unexplained wealth order against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain and interim freezing orders against Mr Hussain and the six corporate respondents. The judge found that the statutory requirements in section 362B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were satisfied (holding, value, income and the serious crime limb) and that an IFO was necessary to prevent frustration of any subsequent civil recovery order. The hearing was properly held in private under CPR r 39.2 given the stated risks to the investigation, confidentiality of financial material and potential risk to the respondent.