England and Wales

Common law claims include deceit, requiring a false representation made knowingly or without belief in its truth; conspiracy (lawful or unlawful means), which targets combinations intended to injure the claimant; and conversion, which applies only to tangible assets. Related torts include bribery, inducing breach of contract, and unlawful interference. Breach of contract allows recovery of contractual debts or damages, while misrepresentation allows for recission.

Equitable claims include breach of trust, which imposes strict liability on trustees dealing with assets outside their authority, and breach of fiduciary duty, brought against directors, agents, partners, or solicitors for conflicts of interest or secret profits. Knowing receipt applies where a recipient’s knowledge of trust property makes its retention unconscionable, and dishonest assistance imposes accessory liability for dishonestly assisting a breach. Money had and received, and unjust enrichment offer further routes to recovery. Tracing allows a claimant to follow property through substitutions to recover specific assets or their proceeds, and equitable liens secure restitution against specific property.

The Insolvency Act 1986 allows for the challenge of transactions defrauding creditors and is available to victims and office holders regardless of insolvency (section 423).

Fraud must be distinctly pleaded and proved.

Criminal fraud is primarily governed by the Fraud Act 2006, sections 2–4 of which define three classes of fraud: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. The Act also creates various ancillary offences.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) created an offence of “failure to prevent fraud” (section 199) and attributes criminal liability to companies where certain offences are committed by senior managers acting within the scope of their authority (section 196).

Other offences commonly arising in the context of fraud are established under:

• the Theft Act 1968 (false accounting (section 17); false statements by directors (section 19)) and the Theft Act 1978 (making off without payment (section 3));
• the Bribery Act 2010 (bribery (section1); failure by a company to prevent bribery (section 7));
• the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which establishes various offences relating to unauthorised access to and use of computer material, including with intent to commit another offence (sections1–3, 3ZA, and 3A); and
• the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), which provides for money-laundering offences (sections 327–329).

POCA also underpins confiscation, civil recovery, and unexplained wealth orders (sections 362A–362T), supplemented by the Companies Act 2006 (sections 213–214) and the Insolvency Act 1986 (section 423) (addressed in detail in Question 8.3, below).

Jurisdiction is governed by common law and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 (the Brussels Recast Regulation still applies in legacy cases).

A defendant served within the jurisdiction is subject to it as of right, subject to a stay on forum non conveniens grounds. For defendants abroad, the claimant needs permission to serve out under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (rule 6.36 and Practice Direction 6B), satisfying a three-stage test:

• a serious issue to be tried;
• a good arguable case that the claim falls within a jurisdictional gateway (e.g. tort, contract, trusts, property, necessary or proper party, or the information-orders gateway); and
• that England is the proper forum.

Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 lets English courts grant interim relief (e.g. freezing orders) supporting foreign proceedings (see Question 6.1, below). Courts may also grant injunctions absent an accrued cause of action, provided there is personal jurisdiction and a right to eventual enforcement.

Conflicts with foreign proceedings are resolved via:

• forum non conveniens;
• requiring an election between claims, stays, or injunctions for lis alibi pendens; or
• anti-suit injunctions where foreign proceedings breach an English jurisdiction/arbitration clause or are vexatious.

For fraud claims in tort or equity, the courts will typically look to:

• where the defendant is domiciled or resident;
• where the fraudulent acts or misrepresentations occurred;
• where the claimant suffered loss (damage sustained in England can found jurisdiction even where it is indirect or consequential (FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v. Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45));
• the location of assets, particularly traceable proceeds of the fraud; and
• the governing law of any underlying relationship, contract, or trust.

Where multiple defendants are involved, the presence of an anchor defendant properly before the court can bring others in under the necessary or proper party gateway. Even where jurisdiction is established, forum non conveniens considerations (availability of evidence and witnesses, connections to competing jurisdictions, and the existence of parallel proceedings) can be decisive in practice (Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm)).

Non-contractual obligations, including the primary torts through which fraud claims are actioned (see Question 1.1, above), are governed by the assimilated Rome II Regulation. Accordingly, the law of the country where the damage occurs will apply (Article 4(1)), subject to the common-habitual-residence and the manifestly-more-closely-connected exceptions (Articles 4(2) and 4(3)). Obligations arising in connection with unjust enrichment are governed by the law governing the relationship out of which the unjust enrichment arises, or the common habitual residence, subject to a manifestly-more-closely-connected exception (Article 10). The rules for proprietary claims are more complex, but generally the lex situs applies.

English courts will apply English law if the parties do not plead the application of foreign law and will assume that foreign law is the same as English law if the parties plead the application but not the content of foreign law.

Nearly all forms of property can be traced provided they can be identified, substituted, or their traceable proceeds identified. Assets capable of being traced include real estate, bank accounts and investment portfolios, shares, trust assets, contractual rights, and cryptoassets.

The recent Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 now confirms that digital or electronic assets (including crypto) which do not fall within the category of a physical asset (thing in possession), or a legal right or debt (thing in action) may still be capable of constituting property.

Yes. Both common law and equitable tracing are recognised under English law. However, common law tracing is generally unavailable once assets lose their separate identity through mixing. The more flexible equitable tracing permits tracing through mixed funds where the claimant can establish an equitable proprietary interest.

English courts have developed sophisticated tracing rules for mixed accounts, including presumptions that a claimant may “cherry-pick” from depending on what is most advantageous to them derived from cases such as Re Hallett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch D 696 and Re Oatway [1903] 2 Ch 356. The court seeks to achieve a just allocation while recognising proprietary interests in substituted assets.

Yes, proprietary claims are a central feature of English fraud litigation.

Where property has been obtained through fraud, breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty, the claimant may assert a continuing beneficial interest in identifiable assets or their traceable substitutes. Proprietary claims frequently provide substantial tactical advantages, including priority on insolvency, access to proprietary injunctions, and recovery of increases in asset value.

English law permits tracing into substitute assets acquired using misappropriated property in different ways depending on whether common law or equitable tracing is relevant. Under common law tracing, substitute property must be identifiable and separable from any assets with which it is mixed. Applying equitable tracing rules, a claimant needs to show that the value in the substitute property is attributable to the original property which engages the evidential presumptions referred to in Question 3.2, above, when dealing with mixed funds.

England offers one of the most comprehensive ranges of interim remedies, in part due to its flexible equitable jurisdiction, which seeks to maximise fairness and justice and grants the court broad discretion to award and adapt existing remedies. The most notable tools include:

• worldwide and domestic freezing orders;
• prohibitory injunctions;
• proprietary injunctions;
• search and delivery up orders (which are civil in nature and do not generally require police presence);
• appointment of interim receivers;
• disclosure orders (including against third parties);
• imaging and preservation orders for electronic evidence; and
• anti-suit injunctions.

Most of the above interim remedies can be sought on an urgent basis and without notice to the respondent (which requires an applicant to give full and frank disclosure of all material facts). However, as a “price” for obtaining some of the more draconian relief, including freezing and proprietary injunctions and search orders, applicants are usually required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages, agreeing to compensate a respondent if the relief (which is granted at an interim stage) is later found to have been inappropriate and has caused the respondent financial loss.

English procedure provides extensive disclosure mechanisms. Disclosure obligations are included in the standard form freezing and proprietary orders requiring respondents to disclose the nature, value, and location of their assets.

Claimants are also able to obtain powerful third-party disclosure orders (Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust orders) compelling innocent third parties involved in wrongdoing to disclose information identifying wrongdoers. Such disclosure may also be obtained from cryptocurrency exchanges, professional advisers, and corporate service providers where legal requirements are satisfied.

Yes. In fraud cases, applicants commonly rely on Norwich Pharmacal or Bankers Trust jurisdiction (referred to in Question 5.1, above) because these remedies are specifically designed to identify defendants and trace assets before substantive proceedings commence. The court may also order pre-action disclosure under CPR 31.16 where proceedings are likely, and disclosure is desirable for fairly disposing of anticipated proceedings, assisting resolution or saving costs.

Yes. Courts in each of the three UK jurisdictions can assist disclosure foreign civil proceedings under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, giving effect to letters of request from a foreign court for evidence in civil proceedings (sections 1–2; CPR Part 34). The court cannot order more than in domestic proceedings and cannot order general disclosure, only particular specified documents (section 2(4); Rio Tinto Zinc Corp v. Westinghouse Electric Corp [1978] AC 547). Bankers Trust and Norwich Pharmacal orders can be used to assist tracing in foreign proceedings (see Question 5.1, above).

Foreign freezing orders are not directly enforceable, but local freezing orders (including worldwide freezing orders) (see Question 4.1, above) are available in support of foreign proceedings under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (section 25). Third-party freezing orders are available, but the claim for such relief must still fall within one of the CPR’s jurisdictional gateways (see Question 2.1, above).

The Arbitration Act 1996 empowers the court to exercise certain powers, including to take and preserve evidence and grant injunctions, in support of foreign arbitral proceedings (sections 2(3) and 44).

Strong on the civil side, weaker on the criminal. English courts readily grant worldwide freezing orders, Norwich Pharmacal disclosure, and Hague Evidence Convention requests. But the criminal apparatus claimants often rely on lags:

• the Financial Action Task Force rates UK international cooperation and confiscation only “substantial” (not “high”);
• cross-border recoveries were just GBP 5.8 million in 2023–24;
• unexplained wealth orders remain rarely used since a costly 2019 failure; and
• the SFO remains under-resourced despite new partnerships with France and Switzerland.

The Hague Evidence Convention 1970 and the Hague Service Convention 1965, to both of which the UK remains a party in its own right post-Brexit, and which now fill the gap left by the lapsed EU Service and Evidence Regulations.

Bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties underpin cooperation, with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959 and the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020 governing EU criminal cooperation post-Brexit.

Generally, yes.

The Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 applies to judgments rendered by a court of a contracting state pursuant to an exclusive choice of court agreement. The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 applies to judgments rendered in proceedings in other Convention states where the proceedings were commenced on or after 1 July 2025.

Statutory registration regimes exist for certain Commonwealth and listed countries. The Administration of Justice Act 1920 applies to judgments from many offshore jurisdictions (including Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Singapore). The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 provides for reciprocal enforcement of judgments from Australia, Canada (except Quebec), India, Israel, Norway, Pakistan, Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man, as well as judgments from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands where the relevant judgment falls outside of the European regime.

For jurisdictions to which no convention or statutory recognition regime applies (including, notably, the United States), common law rules apply, and enforcement is via a fresh action on the judgment debt.

Foreign civil freezing orders are not directly enforceable, but parallel interim relief can be obtained under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (see Question 6.1, above).

Foreign restraint and confiscation orders are given effect principally under Part 11 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and its main implementing instrument, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005. Incoming external requests are routed through the UK Central Authority at the Home Office, and orders are given effect by the Crown Court. Registration of an external request is mandatory once specified conditions are met.

Civil fraud claims and insolvency proceedings frequently operate in tandem. English insolvency law (in particular, the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA)) provides a suite of investigative and recovery powers which often complement civil fraud remedies, or in some cases, even exceed the remedies available to individual claimants.

Generally, in an insolvency process, unsecured creditors are treated equally. However, this pari passu principle can be displaced in the event of fraud and a victim of fraud may obtain a better outcome in the insolvency than other unsecured creditors where it can establish a proprietary claim or interest.

Yes. Where a company has been used as the vehicle for a fraud, or has itself fallen victim, liquidators and administrators may pursue claims including for breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance (section 212, IA), fraudulent trading (section 213, IA), wrongful trading (section 214, IA), transactions at an undervalue, and preferences (see Question 8.3, below), and claims against directors and third parties.

Perhaps most significantly, insolvency office holders benefit from extensive statutory powers to compel the production of information and documents, examine directors and investigate the affairs of insolvent companies which often generate evidence that underpins civil recovery actions against fraudsters and recipients of misappropriated assets (sections 235–236, IA).

Yes. The IA provides various avoidance provisions allowing office holders to challenge transactions at an undervalue (section 238, IA), preferences (section 239, IA), credit transactions (section 244, IA), and certain floating charges (section 245, IA), and to seek contribution from persons engaged in fraudulent or wrongful trading (sections 213 and 214, IA). Both office holders and individual claimants can challenge transactions defrauding creditors (section 423).

Where proprietary rights can be established, tracing remedies may also permit recovery of assets transferred through multiple recipients, subject to the rights of bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

Parallel civil and criminal proceedings are common in fraud cases and there are strategic advantages to running a civil recovery action alongside a criminal action (and vice versa). The commencement of criminal proceedings does not automatically stay civil claims and courts are often reluctant to do so, although courts will generally seek to manage parallel proceedings in a way that avoids prejudice to the administration of justice.

Yes, as referred to in Question 4.1, above, there is potential for civil search orders which permit a claimant’s legal team to enter a premises without notice (under supervision of an independent solicitor) to search for assets or evidence with a view to preserving those assets or evidence pending judgment.

UK enforcement authorities (e.g. the Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency) also have civil powers to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct without requiring a criminal conviction. The ECCTA also provide enforcement authorities with the power to obtain crypto wallet freezing orders enabling the seizure of cryptoassets without requiring prior arrest or conviction.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 also provides account freezing orders, account forfeiture orders, unexplained wealth orders (in limited circumstances), cash forfeiture, and other investigative powers.

Victims are not parties to confiscation proceedings; however, the courts may make a compensation order to reimburse a victim for losses and prosecuting authorities may consider victims’ interests when exercising enforcement powers.

Recoveries obtained under criminal confiscation or forfeiture are generally paid to the state, although compensation orders and discretionary compensation schemes may provide some benefit to victims.

Subject to the application of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA) (see Question 10.2, below):

• Claims arising in tort are subject to a six-year limitation period that begins to run from the date on which the cause of action accrues (section2). The cause of action for most tort claims will accrue when the claimant suffers legally recognisable damage.
• Claims arising in contract are subject to a six-year limitation period that begins to run on the date of the breach (irrespective of the date on which losses arising from that breach are suffered) (section5).
• Claims for fraudulent breach of trust against a trustee or to recover trust property from a trustee are not subject to a limitation period (although may be limited by laches) (section 21(1)). Claims for non-fraudulent breach of trust are subject to a six-year limitation period (section21(3)).
• Claims made under section423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (see Question 8.3, above) are subject to a 12-year limitation period (section 8(1), LA); however, actions for recovery of money brought via section 423 are subject to a shorter, six-year limitation period (section 9, LA).

Yes. Where a claim is based on the fraud of the defendant or where any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action has been deliberately concealed by the defendant, the running of time for limitation purposes is suspended until such time as the claimant discovers (or, with reasonable diligence, could have discovered) that fraud or concealment (section 32, LA).

Limitation bars stale actions, while laches and acquiescence bar equitable claims where unreasonable delay has caused prejudice, or where the claimant’s knowing inaction makes it unconscionable to assert the claim later. Accessory and knowing receipt claims turn on the defendant’s state of mind: absent dishonesty or knowledge, such claims fail.

Where the claim is proprietary, the bona fide purchaser for value without notice offers a complete defence, protecting not only the purchaser but subsequent transferees who derive title through them. Claims in unjust enrichment face their own defence in change of position, which defeats restitution where the defendant has relied in good faith on the receipt.

Beyond these, a defendant may also rely on estoppel, set-off (though not against proprietary claims), or the bars to rescission (affirmation, impossibility of restitution, and third-party rights).

Tortious claims all attract damages on the tortious measure, allowing recovery of all losses directly flowing from the fraud, including consequential loss, whether or not foreseeable. Other remedies include rescission, account of profits (in the alternative to damages), equitable compensation, restitution, and proprietary relief.

Yes. English law recognises institutional constructive trusts, which arise automatically by operation of law, but not discretionary remedial constructive trust recognised in certain other common law jurisdictions (Re Polly Peck (No 2) [1998] 3 All ER 812). Equitable liens may also be imposed to secure a proprietary claim. In a mixed substitution, where trust money funds only part of a substitute asset, the beneficiary may claim a proportionate share, or a lien over the whole asset only where the other contributor is also a wrongdoer; where contributors are innocent, only a proportionate share is available (Foskett v. McKeown [2001] AC 102).

A claimant will generally seek a declaration of constructive trust where the asset has increased in value, and a lien where it has fallen.

A successful proprietary claim gives the claimant priority over the defendant’s unsecured creditors in any insolvency claim. Assets are realised by sale, frequently through court-appointed receivers (including equitable receivers by way of equitable execution), with the proceeds distributed to the proprietary claimant ahead of the general estate.

Yes. Simple interest is recoverable under the Senior Courts Act 1981 (section 35A), and compound interest is recoverable in equity for claims relating to fraud and for breach of fiduciary duty (subject to certain additional requirements) (President of India v. La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA [1985] AC 104).

Costs generally follow the event (CPR Part 44), and indemnity costs are frequently (though not automatically) awarded against unsuccessful defendants in fraud cases given the seriousness of the conduct.

England remains one of the leading jurisdictions for international fraud litigation. Its principal strengths include experienced specialist judges, sophisticated equitable remedies, extensive disclosure mechanisms, effective interim relief and well-developed jurisprudence on asset tracing.

Very quickly. Without notice applications for interim orders can often be heard within hours or days where genuine urgency is demonstrated.

Fraud actions can be expensive, particularly where interim relief is required. England has a mature litigation funding market, making substantial international recovery actions commercially viable in appropriate cases. Other funding options include conditional fee agreements and after the event insurance.

As mentioned in the response to Question 4.1, above, when making an application for most interim relief on a without notice basis, applicants owe a strict duty of full and frank disclosure. Failure to comply may result in discharge of interim orders regardless of the underlying merits. Similarly, applicants may be required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages and could be the subject of a security for costs application, both of which could involve a claimant having to post security pending judgment.

Practitioners should also carefully consider jurisdiction, service outside the jurisdiction, preservation of privilege, compliance with disclosure obligations, and the practical enforceability of any relief obtained overseas.

Litigation funding faced disruption after R (PACCAR) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, which held that litigation funding agreements calculating the funder’s return as a percentage of damages are damages-based agreements and often unenforceable. While the government indicated it would legislate to reverse the effect of the decision, those legislative efforts have largely stalled.

The ECCTA introduced a new corporate “failure to prevent fraud” offence (section 199) which came into force on 1 September 2025 for large organisations, and the identification doctrine was expanded (section 196) so a “senior manager” can fix a company with liability for economic crimes. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 extended the senior-manager test to all offences from 29 June 2026 (section 250). Consistent with earlier caselaw, the Property (Digital Assets etc,) Act 2025 confirms that a thing that is neither a chose in action nor a chose in possession is still capable of being property.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions are worth noting. In Stevens v. Hotel Portfolio II [2025] UKSC 28, the Court held that a dishonest assistant is liable for dissipating trust property, even where that property consists of unauthorised profits from an earlier breach of trust. In El-Husseini v. Invest Bank [2025] UKSC 4, the Court confirmed that section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 can apply where a debtor procures the transfer of an asset they do not personally own.

English courts continue adapting procedure to the reality that fraudsters are often unidentifiable. Wolverhampton City Council v. London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 confirmed that injunctions may bind “newcomers” not yet identified, reinforcing the persons unknown jurisdiction underpinning much asset recovery. Since offshore exchanges typically hold key information, CPR amendments have added a jurisdictional gateway for disclosure orders, enabling Bankers Trust orders to be served on overseas exchanges. In Williams v. Nest Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 1409 (Comm), the Court extended Norwich Pharmacal relief to asset recipients not yet identifiable but discoverable through disclosure. The Law Commission has also proposed a free-standing information order to assist claimants before they can frame a claim.

UK fraud litigation in 2026 is being pulled in several directions at once. With Philipp v. Barclays [2023] UKSC 25 having closed off Quincecare liability, victims of authorised push payment fraud are now testing new legal theories against the banks that received their money, arguing dishonest assistance, unjust enrichment, or even a duty to retrieve funds, with cases like Santander v. CCP [2025] EWHC 667 (KB) and Terna v. Revolut [2024] EWHC 1419 (Comm) producing mixed results so far. At the same time, cryptoasset fraud has matured into its own specialism, with courts routinely granting freezing, proprietary, and disclosure orders to help victims trace and recover stolen assets from exchanges. Layered on top of this, recent rulings in Credit Suisse Life Ltd v. Ivanishvili [2025] UKPC 53, Hopcraft v. Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33, and Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd have shifted core doctrines on deceit and secret commissions in claimants’ favour, while the new ECCTA “failure to prevent fraud” offence and a growing litigation funding market are opening up further avenues for pursuing fraud claims.