[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)

Fecha: 03-Sep-2025

The significance of the false statement, use to which it was put and Mr Ginda’s motive

The significance of the false statement, use to which it was put and Mr Ginda’s motive

76.

Mr Watson says:

(a)

The false statement, as to the balance held on TGDM’s BNP account in Mr Ginda’s affidavit of 12 November 2024, was made to prevent discovery of Mr Ginda’s initial, at least misleading statement (that TGDM had received £10,289,910 from Cortland, when in fact it had received £12,347,892) and to ensure that TGDM could continue to dissipate its assets despite the Freezing Order;

(b)

the making of a false statement, as to TGDM’s assets, in response to a requirement in the Freezing Order to provide those details is extremely serious. The whole purpose of the freezing order regime would be undermined if making a false statement in that context attracted no sanction; and

(c)

this is not an issue that will form any part of the final decision in the substantive proceedings (as to liability or quantum) so there will be no sanction for making such a deliberately false statement, unless contempt proceedings are pursued;

77.

Mr Robins says that, even assuming that Sanman is right, that Mr Ginda deliberately made a false statement as to the balance on TGDM’s PNB account, it had no effect on the financial limit applied to the Freezing Order or dissipation of TGDM’s assets because: (a) the financial limit was calculated according to the profit anticipated to be made from the Residential Development and Hotel Development, not the cash held by TGDM; and (b) the payments to Samuel & Co and Skybridge, were made before the Freezing Order was granted. The alleged false statement is not therefore significant to the proceedings.

78.

I am satisfied that Sanman has established a strong prima facie case: (a) that Mr Ginda’s false statement regarding the balance on TGDM’s PNB account was of significant importance to the Freezing Order and the freezing order regime more generally; and (b) that Mr Ginda’s motive for deliberately making such a false statement (if Sanman establishes it was deliberate) and the use to which the false statement was put, was to mislead Sanman and the court as to the true balance on TGDM’s account with PNB.

79.

I have come to the conclusions in paragraph 78 above for the following reasons:

(a)

the purpose of the freezing order regime (which applies where the claimant is able to show that there is a real risk of the defendant wrongly dissipating its assets to avoid the claimant enforcing any subsequent judgment it may obtain against the defendant) is to prevent such dissipation. It is a standard requirement in a freezing order that the defendant discloses details of their assets, in order to enable the freezing order to be policed. If the response to that requirement is inaccurate to a material extent, then neither the claimant nor the court can know whether the defendant has breached the freezing order. For that reason I accept Mr Watson’s point that the purpose of the freezing order regime would be significantly undermined if there is no sanction applied to a defendant or its officers who deliberately provide false information regarding the extent of the defendant’s assets;

(b)

Mr Watson says that Mr Ginda made a false statement regarding the balance on TGDM’s BNP account to hide his previously successful attempt to mislead Sanman into believing that TGDM had only received £10,289,910 from Cortland, when in fact it had received £12,347,892. It is unnecessary for me to determine, at this stage, whether that was Mr Ginda’s purpose, it may well have been, but I am satisfied that Sanman have, in any event, shown that it has a strong prima facie case that Mr Ginda’s purpose (if it is found that he deliberately misrepresented the balance on TGDM’s PNB account) was at least to falsely represent to Sanman that the balance on that account was PNB £9,315,733, when it was in fact £1.8 million higher..