Tatiana Akhmedova v Farkhad Teimur Ogly Akhmedov
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD13D05340 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 21 April 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 545 (Fam)
Mrs Justice Knowles
Case No: FD13D05340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Alan Gourgey QC and James Willan (instructed by PCB Litigation) for the Applicant
Graham Brodie QC and Richard Eschwege (instructed by BCL Solicitors LLP) for the Eighth and Ninth Respondents
Robert Levy QC and Oliver Assersohn (instructed by Patron Law) for the Tenth Respondent
Erin Hitchens (instructed by Patron Law) for the Eleventh Respondent
Hearing dates: 30 November, 1–4 December, 6–11 December; 14–18 December 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published.
| CONTENTS | PARAGRAPH |
| Introduction | 1–5 |
| Summary of My Conclusions | 6–12 |
| The Parties to the Proceedings | 13–22 |
| Background Summary | 23 |
| (a) 2015–2015 | 24–28 |
| (b) Middle East Schemes 2015 | 29–39 |
| (c) The Liechtenstein Schemes 2016 | 40–52 |
| (d) Further Events in 2017 | 53–59 |
| Summary of the Wife's Claims | 60 |
| (a) Counselor and Sobaldo | 61–64 |
| (b) Temur | 65–73 |
| (c) Borderedge | 74–76 |
| The Law | |
| (a) The Insolvency Act 1986 | 77–88 |
| (b) The Insolvency Act 1986: The Gateway Submission | 89–104 |
| (c) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 | 105–116 |
| (d) Lies | 117–118 |
| Procedural History | 119–129 |
| Disclosure Prior to Commencement of the Hearing | 130 |
| (a) Counselor and Sobaldo | 131–132 |
| (b) Temur | 133–145 |
| (c) Borderedge | 146–149 |
| The Hearing | 150–160 |
| The Evidence | 161 |
| (a) The Wife | 162–168 |
| (b) Temur | 169–177 |
| (c) Expert Evidence | 178–180 |
| (d) Mr Ross Henderson | 181–185 |
| The Claims Against Counselor and Sobaldo | |
| (a) Purpose of the Transfer into the Genus Trust | 186–196 |
| (b) Purpose of the Subsequent Transfers | 197–200 |
| (c) Relief Sought | 201–205 |
| (d) Counselor and Sobaldo's Defence | 206–208 |
| (e) Insufficient Connection/Exorbitant Extra-Territorial Effect | 209–225 |
| (f) Alleged Risk of Prosecution | 226–233 |
| (g) No Standing as Victim | 234–240 |
| (h) Quantum | 241–246. |
| The Monetary Assets Claim Against Temur | 247 |
| (a) Temur's Involvement with the Husband's Schemes | 248–261 |
| (b) Transfers: 2015–2016 | 262–276 |
| (c) Transfers: 2017–2019 | 277–283 |
| (d) Discretion | 284–288 |
| The Moscow Property | 289–290 |
| (a) Transfer to Temur: 2018 | 291–309 |
| (b) Transfer to the Husband: 2020 | 310–327 |
| (c) Relief | 328–334 |
| The Claim Against Borderedge | 335 |
| (a) Background Facts | 336–346 |
| (b) The Wife's Case | 347–353 |
| (c) Borderedge's Defences | 354 |
| (d) The Evidence | 355–367 |
| (e) Intention | 368–371 |
| (f) Wife Not Prejudiced | 372–375 |
| (g) Value for Transfer | 376–382 |
| (h) Discretion | 383–388 |
| Temur's Counterclaim | 389–399 |
| Conclusion | 400–404 |
Introduction
All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. With apologies to Tolstoy, the Akhmedov family is one of the unhappiest ever to have appeared in my courtroom. Though this case concerns wealth of which most can only dream, it is — at its core — a straightforward case in which, following their divorce, a wife seeks to recover that which is owed to her from a husband and his proxies who, it is alleged, have done all they can to put monies beyond her reach. Nevertheless, it is a case not without legal and factual complexity though much of that stems from the details of dishonest schemes instigated by Farkhad Akhmedov and put into effect by his advisors and his eldest son, Temur Akhmedov.
These proceedings have been the subject of intense media interest. This judgment will endeavour to provide a clear context for the claims brought by Tatiana Akhmedova [“the Wife”] against some of the Respondents, and will then analyse and determine those claims, having taken account of a mass of documentary and oral evidence. This judgment is necessarily lengthy as it concerns separate claims against three Respondents. At the conclusion of this judgment is a glossary which (a) identifies the principal actors, orders, and claims and (b) contains a list of every reported judgment in this case with a brief description. I have also appended a chronology for ease of reference.
At the outset, I wish to record my thanks to the advocates who appeared before me. Their written and oral submissions were excellent, and each said all that could have been said on behalf of their respective clients. If, at times, I have not done justice to the skill with which their submissions were made, the fault is mine. I have taken account of all the arguments made by each party in coming to my conclusions.
I have read a very significant amount of material contained in many bundles together with three bundles of law and case law. Though I have been confronted with this case on many occasions in the past and so have some acquaintance with its difficulties and nuances, I have read more deeply into it than the time allocated for that purpose in the trial template. Much of the documentation was contemporaneous to the events recorded in this judgment but I reminded myself to examine it carefully especially as the authors, with the exception of Temur, did not give evidence to me.
This judgment has been delayed by the need to receive further submissions from the parties due on 11 January 2021 and by my other judicial commitments. I observe that the trial time estimate contained no allowance for judgment writing. Had it done so, the trial would have been delayed until well into 2021.
Summary of My Conclusions
The Wife has been the victim of a series of schemes designed to put every penny of the Husband's wealth beyond her reach. That strategy was designed to render the Wife powerless by ensuring that, if she did not settle her claim for financial relief following their divorce on the Husband's terms, there would be no assets left for her to enforce against. Their eldest son, Temur, confirmed in his oral evidence that the Husband would rather have seen the money burnt than for the Wife to receive a penny of it. Regrettably, those schemes were carried out with Temur's knowledge and active assistance. I reject his case that he was a mere go-between for his father: the evidence indicated otherwise. Temur told me in his evidence that he had helped his father protect his assets from his mother's claims. He was, indeed, his father's lieutenant. Temur has learned well from his father's past conduct and has done and said all he could to prevent his mother receiving a penny of the matrimonial assets. He lied to this court on numerous occasions; breached court orders; and failed to provide full disclosure of his assets. I find that he is a dishonest individual who will do anything to assist his father, no doubt because he is utterly dependent on his father for financial support.
The transfers of very large sums of money to Temur in 2015 and 2016 were driven by the Husband's overarching desire to keep his assets from the Wife. The transfer of $50 million in August 2015 took place only because there was an urgent need to move all Cotor's available cash in circumstances where the transfer of Cotor's entire portfolio of assets to Emirates NBD had to be put on hold due to market volatility. Temur understood his father's purpose at the relevant times and worked with him to achieve the aim of preserving assets for the family by keeping them out of the Wife's hands.
The transfer of funds to Borderedge was a necessary part of the scheme to strip everything from Cotor. The intention was to ensure that the funds which had been “blocked” as cash collateral for the UBS loans would never become available for enforcement of a judgment against Cotor. No one has been able suggest any other purpose for the transfer of that cash from Cotor to Borderedge in November 2016. The arrangements to transfer that cash were orchestrated by Kerman & Co, on behalf of the Husband, and that firm provided the instructions to Borderedge's nominee director. I reject Borderedge's claim that it acted in good faith.
The transfers to the Liechtenstein Trusts were, on Temur's own admission, intended to put assets beyond the Wife's reach. I reject the legal arguments advanced by the Liechtenstein Trusts, most of which I had already rejected in my judgment handed down on 14 August 2020. An application by the Liechtenstein Trusts for permission to appeal my August 2020 decision was refused by the Court of Appeal on 27 November 2020.
Finally, despite a formidable smokescreen intended to show that the transfer of the Moscow Property was an arm's length commercial transaction, I have no hesitation in finding that the Husband simply gave this property to Temur. I reject Temur's case that the Husband was engaged in some form of “estate planning”. Once the Wife commenced her claim against Temur in late...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LS v PS
...6 More recently, Knowles J has considered the relevance of the “purpose” test in s. 423 of IA 1986 in Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Others [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam) at para 77. She held that there is no necessity or requirement that the sole or dominant purpose of the transaction should be to defraud......
-
Brigita Morina v Catherine Mairead McAleavey
... [2007] 1 WLR 2404, at [86], BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2019] EWCA Civ 112 [2019] 2 All ER 784, at [66], and Akhmedova v Akhmedov [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam) [2021] 4 WLR 88, at 82 While it is true that what was said in these cases, in the extracts identified above, was not specifically conce......
-
Brid Angela Gallagher v Donal John Gallagher
...point except by assuming that the language of the rules has an effect which arguably it does not. 5 (1) Akhmedova v Akhmedov and others [2021] EWHC 545; (2) Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 4122 (Fam); (3) HRH Haya Bint Al Hussein v His Highness Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum [2021] EWFC 94;......
-
LS v PS
...6 More recently, Knowles J has considered the relevance of the “purpose” test in s. 423 of IA 1986 in Akhmedova v Akhmedov & Others [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam) at para 77. She held that there is no necessity or requirement that the sole or dominant purpose of the transaction should be to defraud......
-
English Court Confirms Expansive Jurisdiction to Reverse Transactions to Defraud Creditors Even Outside Insolvencies
...Latham, visit our subscriber page. Latham & Watkins 28 May 2021 | Number 2878 | Page 5 Endnotes 1 Akhmedova v Akhmedov and others [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam). 2 [2016] EWHC 1686. 3 [2006] EWCA Civ 542. ...