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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

Other Claims

129.

I consider the same is true in respect of the other claims pursued against Sanjay Shah, that is to say claims for:

(i)

equitable compensation alleging dishonest assistance in breaches of constructive trusts alleged to have come into existence in respect of the proceeds of the fraud SKAT alleged but did not prove;

(ii)

equitable compensation in lieu of an account of profits alleging ‘knowing’ receipt (i.e. receipt in circumstances where it would be unconscionable to countenance retention of the benefit by the recipient) of benefits alleged to have been received by Mr Shah in breach of those alleged constructive trusts;

(iii)

restitution in respect of enrichment alleged to have been unjust on the basis that it was enrichment at SKAT’s expense directly or indirectly through SKAT being induced to make payments by the fraud it alleged but did not prove; and

(iv)

declarations as to SKAT’s beneficial proprietary interest, as it alleged, in various assets of Mr Shah’s said to be the traceable indirect proceeds of the fraud SKAT alleged but did not prove.

130.

Mr Shah is the individual who loomed largest in the case, albeit he was involved in only one of what SKAT sought to prove had been three fraudulent schemes, whereas the DWF Ds were important to Solo Model trading in 2012/2013 and then to Maple Point Model trading in 2014 (all of them) and 2015 (Mr Horn only), and Mr Klar had involvement with both of those Models throughout whilst at the same time designing and implementing his own Klar Model (so that his was the ‘prize’ for the largest aggregate claim amount put forward by SKAT, aggregate damages of DKK11,986,647,246.53, reducing after giving credit for recoveries to DKK8,391,653,667.29). I consider it is not surprising, therefore, that even limiting heavily how much I have chosen to deal with in this Appendix in relation to the claims against Mr Shah, this section of the Appendix is not very short. I mean no disrespect to any of the other trial defendants, or to the efforts to which SKAT went in setting out how its case against them individually was put, if in the remainder of this Appendix I deal with matters more briefly.