National Crime Agency v Hussain & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 July 2019, following a hearing on without notice applications by the National Crime Agency ("the NCA"), the court made an unexplained wealth order ("UWO") under section 362A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") against the Defendant, whose identity had been protected by an anonymity order. An interim freezing order ("IFO") under section 362J of POCA was also made against the Defendant and six corporate respondents ("the Other IFO Respondents").

The NCA applied for the UWO on 24 May 2019 and for the IFO on 10 July 2019, both without notice. The Defendant is suspected by the NCA of involvement in serious criminality linked to organised crime gangs operating in the Bradford area, including drug offences, firearms offences, fraud, and money laundering. The Defendant is alleged to act as a professional enabler and money launderer for criminals in these gangs, using corporate vehicles to launder proceeds of crime through property investments.

The Other IFO Respondents are six companies wholly owned and controlled by the Defendant, holding various residential and commercial properties relevant to the UWO and IFO applications. The properties include freehold and leasehold interests in locations across Leeds, Cheshire, Wakefield, and London.

The UWO application was initially listed for a private hearing on 4 July 2019, challenged by media organisations but later withdrawn. The IFO application was made subsequently after new information altered the risk profile, necessitating freezing orders to prevent dissipation of assets. The existence of the UWO and IFO ceased to be confidential following a property freezing order made in February 2020, leading to discharge of the anonymity order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the statutory requirements under POCA for making an unexplained wealth order (including the Holding, Value, Income, and Serious Crime Requirements) were met in respect of the Defendant and the relevant properties.
2. Whether it was necessary and proportionate to make an interim freezing order against the Defendant and the corporate respondents to prevent dissipation of assets.
3. Whether the hearing of the UWO and IFO applications should be conducted in private, considering the principles of open justice and the exceptions under CPR r 39.2(3).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's (NCA) Arguments

• The NCA suspected the Defendant of acting as a professional enabler and money launderer for organised crime gangs involved in serious offences including drugs trafficking, armed robbery, fraud, and money laundering.
• The Defendant holds or controls a portfolio of properties, many through corporate entities he owns or controls, which are suspected to be funded by the proceeds of crime.
• The statutory requirements for a UWO were satisfied: the Defendant holds the properties, their value exceeds £50,000, there were reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant’s lawfully obtained income was insufficient to acquire the properties, and there were reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in serious crime.
• The IFO was necessary to prevent dissipation of assets, especially following information that a property transfer was imminent and could frustrate civil recovery proceedings.
• The hearing should be held in private due to the risk that publicity would defeat the object of the hearing, involve confidential personal financial information, and pose a threat to the Defendant’s safety given the violent nature of the organised crime gangs involved.
• The UWO regime anticipates applications without notice and hearings in private, supported by statutory provisions, the Revised Code of Practice, and Practice Directions.
• Alternatives such as disclosure orders were less practical, more intrusive, and less effective given the complexity and secrecy of the suspected criminal funding sources.
• The UWO and IFO orders were proportionate and necessary to assist investigations and potential civil recovery without imposing criminal penalties for non-compliance.

Defendant's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Defendant's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework for unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) and interim freezing orders (IFOs) under POCA and the Criminal Finances Act 2017, including the requirements that must be met for their issuance: the Holding, Value, Income, and Serious Crime Requirements for UWOs, and the necessity of an IFO to prevent frustration of civil recovery.

Applying these principles, the court accepted the NCA’s evidence and submissions that the Defendant holds or controls the relevant properties, that their collective value exceeds £50,000, and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the Defendant’s lawfully obtained income would have been insufficient to acquire the properties.

The court accepted that the Serious Crime Requirement was met based on the NCA’s case that the Defendant acted as a professional enabler and money launderer for organised crime gangs involved in serious offences such as drug trafficking, armed robbery, fraud, and money laundering.

The court agreed with the NCA’s interpretation of "reasonable grounds to believe" and "reasonable grounds for suspecting" as objective standards applied to the NCA’s subjective belief or suspicion, consistent with precedent.

Regarding the necessity of holding the hearing in private, the court applied CPR r 39.2(3) and found that multiple subparagraphs applied, including that publicity would defeat the object of the hearing, it involved confidential information, it was an application made without notice, and other reasons to secure the proper administration of justice.

The court acknowledged the serious risk to the Defendant’s safety from organised crime gangs if the hearing were publicised, the potential personal and reputational damage from public disclosure of suspicions at an early investigative stage, and the risk of prejudicing the ongoing investigation.

The court accepted that the statutory regime and supporting practice directions create a strong presumption in favour of privacy for UWO hearings and related applications, and that reporting restrictions alone would be insufficient to protect the Defendant’s rights and the integrity of the investigation.

Finally, the court found that the IFO was necessary to prevent dissipation of assets, particularly given evidence of an imminent property transfer, and that it was appropriate and proportionate to make the IFO against the Defendant and the corporate respondents.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the unexplained wealth order against the Defendant and the interim freezing order against the Defendant and the Other IFO Respondents.

The hearing of the applications was properly conducted in private in accordance with CPR r 39.2(3), and the court discharged the anonymity order protecting the Defendant’s identity following the subsequent public property freezing order.

The decision directly affects the parties by imposing obligations on the Defendant to provide information and freezing the relevant properties to prevent dissipation. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied established statutory provisions and case law to the facts presented.