![AC-2025-LON-002199 - [2025] EWHC 2057 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Proving Unlawful Conduct by Inference
Proving Unlawful Conduct by Inference
In civil recovery proceedings, it is necessary to identify the kind of unlawful conduct. Where the type of unlawful conduct is money laundering, it can be proved by inference. Langley J in ARA v Olupitan [2007] EWHC 162 (QB), at paragraph 65, stated that:
“A substantive offence of money laundering can be proved by inference from the way in which cash is dealt with and it is not necessary to prove the underlying offence which generated the cash”.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background to the Case
- Declared Income of the Respondents
- Financial Analysis: 2010 to 2018
- Financial Analysis: 2018 to 2024
- 26 The Holdings (“Asset 1”)
- 27 Meadow Croft (“Asset 2”)
- 6 Goldings Crescent (“Asset 3”)
- HBOS Savings Account ending 969 (“Asset 4”)
- Relevant Law
- Unlawful Conduct
- Recoverable Property
- Property Freezing Order (PFO)
- “A good arguable case”
- Proving Unlawful Conduct by Inference
- Risk of Dissipation
- Issues for Determination
- Analysis
- Without Notice Hearing and Risk of Dissipation
- Full and Frank Disclosure
- Conclusions