KB-2024-001295 - [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB)

The Claimant had made D2 and D3 aware of the 11 November 2025 hearing and served with them with the hearing bundle. They did not attend, nor were they represented at, the hearing. I concluded that it was appropriate to proceed in their absence for the same reasons as applied in relation to the 9 June 2025 hearing, as set out at [67]-[70] above.

Counsel’s Notes and submissions made the following broad points clear.

First, it was now agreed that it was not necessary for me to resolve the legal dispute that had arisen between the parties as to whether the court could, or should, structure the civil recovery order so as to enable D1 to pay to the US authorities the amount demanded under the restitution order.

Second, while the Claimant did not actively support D1’s position, there was no formal opposition to the Claimant’s desired final outcome in principle. There had been useful discussions between the parties about how that end might be achieved.

Third, it was agreed that the Claimant was limited in what he can do to achieve that outcome. The Claimant could not, in the circumstances of this case, simply pay recovered monies to the US authorities. Nor could the Claimant agree to any order that excluded the $2,187,716.21 sought by the restitution order, leaving D1 to repay the restitution order (or not). Rather, in order for the restitution order to be satisfied by the funds covered by the order sought in these proceedings, there needed to be some action by the US authorities.

Fourth, while the evidence suggested some disagreement as to whether there had been sufficient engagement with the US authorities to date, it was now understood that if the order sought was made, the US Department of Justice would send a formal letter to the Home Office requesting an asset sharing agreement for the purpose of compensating the victims in the US proceedings. This would be pursuant to a treaty signed between the UK and the US governments on 6 January 1994, providing for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, which I have seen. This route of “enforcement” places matters at an executive level such that the Claimant himself would play no role in the negotiation of the asset sharing agreement.

The net result was that the Claimant and D1 were agreed that the civil recovery order sought by the Claimant could be made, provided that a preamble to the order reflected the expected roles of the US Department of Justice and the Home Office once the order was made.