![UT/2023/000092 - [2024] UKUT 00035 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I am unable to be satisfied that if the requirements considered were suspended, the interests of the relevant persons intended to be protected would not be prejudiced. The pre-condition for the exercise of the tribunal’s power to suspend under Rule 5(5) is not therefore met. (That conclusion also means that a proposal which Nvayo put in the alternative which agreed to certain other requirements regarding preservation of records, ring-fencing, and restrictions on unusual payments, but on the proviso the requirements relating to new and existing business was suspended is unviable.)
Nvayo’s suspension application is accordingly refused.
SWAMI RAGHAVAN
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
Release date: 05 February 2024
- Heading
- Introduction
- background
- The requirements sought to be suspended
- Evidence and findings of fact for purposes of this application
- Nvayo’s history and business
- USDoJ Investigation and criminal complaint against Mr Scanlon
- Safeguarding bank accounts
- AML review
- law in relation to Suspension application
- Discussion
- Can the Tribunal be satisfied that suspending the requirement would not prejudice the persons intended to be protected by the notice?
- Requirement restricting Nvayo undertaking new business
- Tribunal’s views
- Requirement restricting existing business
- Authority’s review of ten client files
- Tribunal’s views
- Assets requirement on Nvayo’s own assets
- Other points
- Conclusions