AC-2025-LON-002199 - [2025] EWHC 2057 (Admin)

Although not a statutory requirement for a PFO, the need to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation is crucial, as is the fundamental reason for seeking such an order. This principle, set out in Jennings v CPS (Practice Note) [2006] 1 W.LR 182 in relation to restraint orders, is applicable to PFOs. Longmore LJ in Jennings stated, at paragraph 61, that:

“Fear of dissipation of assets is the reason for seeking a restraint order. Such fear must, in fact, exist before an order should be applied for. But in a case where dishonesty is charged, there will usually be reason to fear that assets will be dissipated. I do not therefore consider it necessary for the prosecutor to state in terms that he fears assets will be dissipated merely because he or she thinks there is a good arguable case of dishonesty. As my Lord has said, the risk of dissipation will generally speak for itself. Nevertheless, prosecutors must be alive to the possibility that there may be no risk in fact”.

This principle was reiterated in NCA v Younis [2023] EWHC 2477 (Admin) at paragraph 8.