[2025] EWHC 1460 (Fam)

Fecha: 04-Jun-2025

Use of the G proceeds

Use of the G proceeds

61.

Of course, it does not follow from the fact that the G sums were received in 2020 and 2022 that the money still remains. The father’s case is that he has spent the entirety of the €16.7 million received personally. His evidence in his first statement was that the majority was loaned to companies owned by BH s.r.o.. He also said in that statement that some of the money was used to repay loans, including a loan to his father; some was spent travelling; and some was spent refurbishing a property called S in the Czech Republic.

62.

In the continuation sheet attached to his Form E, the father stated that all of the proceeds which he personally received from the G sale had either been spent or put into trust. He provided a breakdown for his asserted spending of €16,427,061, as follows:

(a)

€2,610,403 to repay ‘loans’ to his father (I note, however, that the agreement relating to one of these refers to the sum provided by the paternal grandfather as a ‘donation’, not a loan);

(b)

€600,000 to repay two commercial loans;

(c)

€1,509,341 was sent to his mother for onward transmission to his cousin as a reward for his work as CEO of G (the written instrument produced by the father in relation to this payment merely says that it is a gift to his mother);

(d)

€158,878 to a ‘key employee’ of G (based upon the written instrument produced by the father, this too appears to have been a gift);

(e)

€99,000 to settle an invoice;

(f)

€397,195 to another individual for his work at G (again, this appears to have been a gift);

(g)

€278,037 to repay a mortgage;

(h)

€614,950 on works at the S property;

(i)

€5,056,661 was loaned to BX companies;

(j)

€1,102,596 was used to purchase crypto investments;

(k)

€4,000,000 was used to purchase specialised computer hardware known as ASIC for the purpose of mining Bitcoins. The hardware was later gifted to his sister and his father. The father has produced gift contracts dated 12 January 2024 in respect of these donations. Each of these specifies the value of the gift to the recipient to be €2,000,000.

On balance, I am prepared to accept the father’s evidence that the transactions set out above took place, although – as I shall set out below – I do not accept his case in relation to the gift of the ASIC hardware nor in relation to the asserted loan referred to in the written agreement as a donation. It is striking that the amount he decided to give to his cousin as a reward for his work far exceeds the amount claimed by the mother to purchase a home for his son.

63.

The father has provided no account as to how the remaining money paid to BD s.r.o. for its shares in G has been spent or invested. As the 100% shareholder in the company, it would have been open to him to extract the money (or at least a substantial part of it) by way of dividend, but on his case he decided to leave the money invested within the BX business.