CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

Again, I would not have found that the USPFs acted fraudulently as alleged by SKAT (cf paragraphs 117 and 120 to 122 above). Had the finding been that they acted fraudulently, there would have been no difficulty with the conduct element of a possible accessory liability on the part of Mr Horn and Rajen Shah (cf paragraphs 115 and 123 above), but I express no view concerning Mr Dhorajiwala beyond saying that he is not necessarily in the same position as the other DWF Ds, given his different and subordinate role at the time. For all three DWF Ds, I was not persuaded that they knew (or believed or intended) that the USPFs would be or were acting fraudulently (cf paragraph 126 above). On that last aspect, the case as closed by SKAT was again flawed by failing to identify, let alone establish by evidence, the necessary element of knowledge (or perhaps belief or intent) that the USPFs would be or were acting fraudulently.

As regards SCP, for it to have acted fraudulently would have required different findings of fact, contrary to those which I have made concerning Sanjay Shah’s knowledge and intentions. As regards Oryx and WWAM, findings contrary to those which I have made would have been required concerning Rajen Shah’s and Mr Horn’s knowledge and intentions, respectively. It would then have been necessary to consider separately:

To consider any further the possibility of liability as accessories to deceit would, in my view, stray beyond the limit of utility and ability to which I referred in paragraph 116 above.

Paragraphs 127 to 129 above apply equally to the DWF Ds (substituting each of them in turn for the references to Sanjay Shah).