Faisal Zahoor Ahmad, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Leeds

A search and seizure warrant under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires objectively reasonable grounds for suspicion, but the threshold does not require proof that an offence has been committed. The applicant must make full and fair disclosure of material facts, although only material non-disclosure invalidates the warrant. Reasons should ordinarily be given on an ex parte application, but their absence does not necessarily invalidate the warrant where the statutory basis can be discerned. A warrant must define the permitted search and seizure with sufficient clarity to operate as a self-contained document. A production order is inadequate where obtaining the material would seriously prejudice an investigation, particularly where cryptoassets can readily be moved. Separate statutory approval may lawfully be used to seize cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items.

The claimant sought judicial review of search and seizure warrants issued by Leeds Crown Court on 7 November 2024 and of approval under section 47 G of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to seize cryptoassets and related items. The investigation concerned suspected laundering of proceeds connected with the claimant’s German VAT fraud conviction and the purchase and movement of Bitcoin.

The claimant alleged inadequate grounds for suspicion, material non-disclosure, premature application, failure to use a production order, insufficient particularity in the warrants, and unlawful overlap between the warrants and the section 47 G approval. The central issues were whether the statutory thresholds were met and whether the instruments were sufficiently clear and distinct.

1. Claim dismissed. The evidence provided ample reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering. The statutory requirements for the section 352 warrants and section 47 G approval were therefore met.
2. The relevant suspicion had to be objectively reasonable, but the threshold was not high. The judge granting the warrant did not need to be satisfied that an offence had been committed, since an innocent explanation might emerge during the investigation. The evidence concerning the claimant’s previous fraud conviction, unexplained cryptocurrency movements, use of an unhosted wallet and transactions through company accounts was sufficient.
3. The duty of candour required full and fair disclosure of material facts following proper inquiries. The application disclosed the outstanding information, the claimant’s engagement with HMRC and arguments that might undermine the application. Any inaccuracies or omissions were immaterial and would not have altered the decision.
4. The reading estimate was inadequate, and brief reasons should ordinarily be given on an ex parte application to promote transparency and facilitate later scrutiny. Nevertheless, the judge had understood the substance of the application. The transcript and signed confirmation enabled the court to discern a sufficient statutory basis for the orders.
5. A production order was not an adequate alternative. The material sought concerned cryptoassets which could be moved swiftly beyond the reach of investigators. In the circumstances, obtaining the material by production order risked serious prejudice to the investigation.
6. The warrants were sufficiently clear and precise. References to communications with unidentified associates were confined by their connection with money laundering and cryptocurrency transactions. References to assets and financial products concerned material relating to those assets, rather than seizure of the underlying land or property. The description of high-value items was sufficiently confined by the requirement that they be believed to evidence criminal proceeds.
7. The section 47 G approval served a distinct purpose. It authorised seizure of cryptoassets and cryptoasset-related items under section 47 C and did not overlap unlawfully with the section 352 warrants. The later restraint order did not affect the lawfulness of orders made before it.
8. In any event, section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 required refusal of relief because any defects would not have substantially altered the outcome. The parties were invited to agree an order or seek a further hearing on consequential matters.