National Crime Agency v Mansoor Mahmood Hussain
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Murray |
| Judgment Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 432 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/2065/2019, CO/2696/2019 |
| Date | 28 February 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 432 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Murray
Case Nos: CO/2065/2019, CO/2696/2019
Mr Andrew Sutcliffe QC and Ms Anne Jeavons (instructed by the Civil Recovery and Tax Legal Department of the National Crime Agency) for the Applicant
The Respondents did not appear and were not represented.
Hearing date: 12 July 2019
Approved Judgment
On 12 July 2019, at the conclusion of a hearing to consider without notice applications by the applicant, the National Crime Agency (“the NCA”), I made:
i) an unexplained wealth order (“UWO”) under section 362A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“ POCA”) against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain, whose identity, until today, was protected by an anonymity order made by Lang J on 4 July 2019, for reasons explained in this judgment; and
ii) an interim freezing order (“IFO”) under section 362J of POCA against Mr Hussain and each of six corporate respondents (“the Other IFO Respondents”).
The NCA made its application for a UWO against Mr Hussain on 24 May 2019 (“the UWO Application”) and its application for an IFO against Mr Hussain and the Other IFO Respondents on 10 July 2019 (“the IFO Application”). Both applications were made without notice.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave brief reasons for making the UWO and the IFO and indicated that my full reasons for granting each order would follow in a written judgment. This is that written judgment. My original intention was to set out my reasons in general terms in a public judgment, with supplemental reasons set out in a confidential judgment to be handed down at the same time. In light of events subsequent to the hearing but before hand-down of this judgment, as noted in more detail below, it is no longer necessary for there to be a separate confidential judgment.
In this judgment, I set out the general principles that apply in relation to the making of a UWO and an IFO. I then deal with the general principles that apply to determine in what circumstances the hearing of an application for a UWO and, where relevant, an IFO must be held in private. I then give my reasons why I determined that it was necessary in this case to hear the UWO Application and the IFO Application in private. Finally, I give my reasons why I determined that it was just, appropriate and proportionate, in this case, to make the UWO against Mr Hussain and to make the IFO against Mr Hussain and the Other IFO Respondents.
The UWO Application was made by the NCA on the basis that the NCA suspects that Mr Hussain is involved in serious criminality in connection with the activities of organised crime gangs operating in the Bradford area, the criminality spanning a spectrum of serious crimes, including drugs offences, firearm offences, fraud offences and money-laundering offences. The organised crime gangs concerned are known to be violent. The NCA's case in general terms is that Mr Hussain has been acting as an enabler, laundering the proceeds of the criminal activities of a number of criminals, who are members of those organised crime gangs.
The principal evidence supporting the UWO Application is set out in the first witness statement dated 23 May 2019 made by Mr Andrew Coles, a Financial Investigator and member of staff of the NCA, to which numerous exhibits are attached. In his second witness statement dated 3 July 2019, Mr Coles clarified one point and expanded upon another point in the evidence in his first witness statement. The principal evidence supporting the IFO Application is set out in the third witness statement dated 10 July 2019 made by Mr Coles, in which Mr Coles also set out additional evidence of the NCA in support of the NCA's application that this matter be heard in private.
Background
Mr Hussain was born in Leeds and is currently 39 years old. According to the evidence of Mr Coles, Mr Hussain is self-employed as the director of a number of companies purportedly engaged in property development and management. Mr Hussain has never been convicted of a criminal offence and has received only one police caution, for battery, which he was given on 28 January 2009 by West Yorkshire Police.
The Other IFO Respondents are companies incorporated in England and Wales and registered under the Companies Act 2006 that are wholly owned by Mr Hussain and through which he controls various residential and commercial properties relevant to the UWO Application and, of course, the IFO Application. The Other IFO Respondents are:
i) Laurel Terrace Limited, which is wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he is the sole director;
ii) Land88 Limited, which is wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he is the sole director;
iii) Jayco88 Limited, which was wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he was a director and which, despite having been dissolved by voluntary strike-off on 20 March 2018 from the Companies Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act 2006, remains the registered owner of a relevant property, namely the one described at [9(iv)] below;
iv) Cubic Business Park Limited, which is wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he is the sole director;
v) 88M Group Limited, which is wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he is the sole director; and vi) 2 Park Square Limited, which is wholly owned by Mr Hussain and of which he is a director.
The UWO Application concerns the following properties (“the Properties”):
i) freehold property at 2 Sandmoor Drive, Alwoodley, Leeds LS17 7DG (“2 Sandmoor Drive”), registered at HM Land Registry (“the Land Registry”) under Title No WYK417474, the registered owner of which is Mr Hussain;
ii) freehold property at 3 Laurel Terrace, Armley Leeds LS12 2BZ (“3 Laurel Terrace”), registered at the Land Registry under Title No YWE25690, the registered owner of which is Laurel Terrace Limited;
iii) freehold property consisting of land on the north west side of Paddock Hill, Mobberley, Knutsford, Cheshire (“Paddock Hill”), registered at the Land Registry under Title No CH564718, the registered owner of which is Land88 Limited;
iv) freehold property consisting of land on the south side of Doncaster Road, Wakefield, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK912235, the registered owner of which is Jayco88 Limited, despite that company having been dissolved by voluntary strike-off on 20 March 2018;
v) freehold property consisting of the Cubic Business Centre, Stanningley Road, Bramley, Leeds, LS13 4EN (“Cubic Business Centre”) and land adjoining it, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK470774 and YY66852, the registered owner of which is Cubic Business Park Limited;
vi) leasehold property consisting of the ground floor flat at 101 Walton Street, Kensington, London SW3 2HP, registered at the Land Registry under Title No BGL53420, the registered owner of which is 88M Group Limited;
vii) freehold property consisting of 28 Park Square West, Leeds LS1 2PQ, including 13 The Stables, Somers Street, Leeds LS1 2PQ and 11 The Lodge, Somers Street, Leeds LS1 2PQ, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK858541, the registered owner of which is 88M Group Limited; and viii) freehold property consisting of 2 Park Square East Leeds LS1 2NE, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK449220, the registered owner of which is 2 Park Square Limited.
The nature of the NCA's case in support of the UWO Application and the IFO Application will become clearer when I review the NCA's submissions in relation to each of the statutory requirements for the making of a UWO. In a nutshell, however, the case is that the NCA has sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that Mr Hussain, who is a known associate of leading members of certain organised crime gangs, acts as a “professional enabler” or professional money launderer for a number of well-known criminals who operate in the Leeds/Bradford area, meaning that he uses specialist knowledge and expertise to find opportunities for his criminal associates to retain and to launder the proceeds of crime. One such way is to channel such proceeds through corporate vehicles in order to fund the purchase of residential and commercial properties, principally held by or through companies that he controls. The NCA suspects that each of the Properties falls into that category.
Procedural history
The UWO Application was originally listed before Lang J on 4 July 2019, to be heard in private.
At that time, the NCA did not consider, on balance, that it was necessary also to apply for an IFO in connection with the UWO, in the interests of proportionality and taking the least invasive approach. It considered that the effect of service of the UWO, if granted, would carry sufficient weight to prevent Mr Hussain from taking action intended to thwart the UWO or any future civil recovery proceedings.
Following informal applications by Bloomberg LP (“Bloomberg”) and the Press Association (“the PA”) challenging the decision to hear the UWO Application in private (“the Press Applications”), Lang J adjourned the hearing to 12 July 2019 in order to permit Bloomberg and the PA to prepare and submit written submissions in support of the Press Applications in accordance with CPR r 39.2(5).
On 8 July 2019 Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (“RPC”), solicitors for Bloomberg and the PA wrote to the court indicating that Bloomberg and the PA no longer wished to challenge the decision to hear the UWO Application against Mr Hussain in private and therefore wished to withdraw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Suleyman Javadov and Izzat Khanim Javadov) v Westminster Magistrates' Court
...justice rule and fairness to any person affected by the order. […]” 27 Of note, additionally, in this context is NCA v Hussain [2020] EWHC 432 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 2145. The NCA had applied, inter alia, without notice for an UWO under section 362A of POCA. Pursuant to section 362I of POC......
-
Superintendent of Police (AG) Wendell Lucas v David Neeranjan
...hear the parties on costs. A. Mendonça J.A. M. Mohammed J.A. M. Wilson J.A. 1 [2001] 4 IR 113. 2 [2011] 2 LRC 59. 3 (1990) 54 WIR 1. 4 [2020] EWHC 432. 5 [2015] UKPC 6 [2017] WASC 114. 7 Murphy (n. 1). 8 [2017] NSWSC 681. 9 [2020] VCC 1373. 10 [2010] IWHC 12. 11 [2016] NSWSC 1183. 12 Asse......
-
Unexplained Wealth Orders: The NCA Claim To Have Reached A "Milestone"
...obtained against PEPs, such as Ms Hajiyeva) if the ensuing civil recovery proceedings are contested. Footnotes 1 NCA v Hussain & Ors [2020] EWHC 432 (Admin) 2 3 [2020] EWCA Civ 108 4 [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin) 5 https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/nca-secures-unexplained-wealth-order-a......
-
The McMafia Laws: Unexplained Wealth Orders Explained
...Hussain, Laurel Terrace Limited, Land88 Limited, Jayco88 Limited, Cubic Business Park Limited, 88M Group Limited, 2 Park Square Limited [2020] EWHC 432. 15 16 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-49178074. The NCA website does not disclose further developments in this case since Jul......
-
Unexplained Wealth Orders Subject to Rigorous Judicial Scrutiny
...POCA remains to be seen. [i] [2020] EWCA Civ 108 [2020] WLR(D) 75. [ii] National Crime Agency v. Mansoor Mahmood Hussain & 6 Ors [2020] EWHC 432 (Admin). [iii] Practice Direction for Civil Recovery Proceedings. [iv] NCA v. Baker and others, case numbers CO/1540/2019, CO/1541/2019, CO/1542/2......