Ireland

The primary civil causes of action available in cases of fraud are as follows:

• deceit;
• fraudulent misrepresentation;
• breach of fiduciary duty;
• breach of contract;
• conspiracy;
• unjust enrichment;
• knowing receipt; and
• wilful deceit.

There is no single legislative regime that covers fraud, dishonesty, and financial crime. Rather, the legislation governing these areas is spread across various legislative instruments. For example, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 (“2001 Act”) is the primary legislative framework for fraud offences in Ireland. This is supported by acts such as the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010, the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018, and the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) (Amendment) Act 2021.

There are also certain provisions in the Companies Act 2014 (“2014 Act”) that contain fraud offences as they relate to corporates and company directors. Otherwise, civil claims involving fraud are largely dealt with under the common law.

In civil matters, this depends on the jurisdictions concerned and the nature of the claim. Where the claim falls within the scope of applicable cross-border regulations and conventions, those rules will determine jurisdiction.

Apart from international conventions and European regulations, Irish common law rules of private international law apply. Broadly speaking, the Irish courts will accept jurisdiction over claims if they fall within one of the following categories:

• relief is sought against a person domiciled/ordinarily resident in Ireland;
• relief is sought concerning land within the jurisdiction;
• in cases of contracts, where the contract was made, or a breach of contract committed in the jurisdiction or is governed by Irish law;
• in cases of tort, where the wrongdoing is committed in Ireland;
• injunctive relief within the jurisdiction;
• where any party outside of the jurisdiction is the necessary or proper party to any action;
• relief sought under the Proceeds of Crime Acts; or
• forum conveniens or the court’s discretion to hear proceedings if Ireland is the proper forum.

In criminal matters, jurisdiction depends on the specific offence and relevant statute. Irish law provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in defined circumstances, including under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) (Amendment) Act 2021, in respect of EU financial fraud.

Aside from the factors noted at Question 2.1, above, the Court of Appeal held in Trafalgar Developments Ltd v. Mazepin [2025] IECA 280 that in cases where jurisdiction is asserted over a foreign party, there must be real substance to the proceedings, which must not be a “mere device” to establish jurisdiction in Ireland.

In criminal matters, the general principle is that the offence must be committed in Ireland for the courts to assume jurisdiction. However, the 2001 Act provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction in certain cases; for example, where an Irish citizen commits a prescribed offence abroad.

Irish courts approach conflicts of law by applying applicable international conventions or regulations and the common law rules of private international law to address jurisdiction, the applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of remedies in a cross-border context. Fraud and asset tracing cases may involve personal and proprietary claims to recover assets, which raise distinct conflicts issues. In addressing such issues, the Irish courts adopt a practical approach, particularly where cross-border cooperation is required.

All forms of assets are traceable in Ireland. Tracing exists in both common law and in equity. Tracing in equity is most often sought when a fiduciary relationship exists.

At common law, tracing through mixed funds is not possible. However, unlike common law tracing, equity has adopted a more metaphysical approach as noted in Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465, 520. Tracing in equity is therefore available through mixed funds.

Yes, such claims are typically enforced through proprietary remedies, including the imposition of a constructive trust over the assets.

At common law, the legal owner of property is entitled to follow it into the hands of another or trace it to where it has changed form, provided there is a means of identifying the asset in its original or converted form. This will cease where the means of identifying the original asset is lost.

In equity, any person who has an equitable proprietary interest in the assets, whether real or personal, will be entitled to trace substituted assets. Tracing in equity is unavailable if the assets have been dissipated, if the equitable right has been extinguished (for example, if it comes into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice) or if inequity is at play.

There are a number of remedies available for preserving assets on an interim basis, including;

• Mareva injunctions (freezing orders). Mareva injunctions are sought to preserve assets and prevent them from being dissipated or placed beyond the court’s reach. Due to their nature, they are often sought ex parte, and full and frank disclosure must be made.
• Anton Piller orders. Anton Piller orders are often sought as ancillary relief to Mareva injunctions. They enable entry into the premises of the party against whom relief is sought. They are generally granted where there is an urgent concern that the respondent may try to destroy, move or hide evidence of wrongdoing. Because of its invasive nature, it is a remedy sparingly used and requires a high burden of proof.
• Appointment of a receiver. A plaintiff can seek the appointment of a receiver either before judgment or post-judgment to preserve the assets of the defendant. A court may bestow upon a receiver any powers it deems necessary in the circumstances. Importantly, the power to appoint a receiver does not solely apply to Irish-based assets. As can be seen from Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (In Special Liquidation) v. Quinn [2012] IEHC 507, the Irish court has appointed receivers over assets overseas.
• Norwich Pharmacal orders. Norwich Pharmacal orders are sought against third parties and require the disclosure of information which may identify wrongdoers. This order may also compel the disclosure of the minimum information necessary to enable a prospective plaintiff to issue proceedings against the defendant sought.
• Bankers Trust Orders. Bankers trust orders allow the discovery of documents beyond mere information about the identity of alleged wrongdoers. They can be sought to trace funds in which the applicant asserts an equitable or proprietary claim, in fraud cases, and to preserve or recover assets.
• Asset disclosure orders. Such orders may be sought against defendants to ensure an accurate reflection of all assets held.
• Third-party disclosure. Third-party disclosure may be sought to assist in tracing of assets. These are generally sought against financial institutions.
• Bayer orders. Bayer orders are granted only in exceptional and compelling circumstances under O’Neill v O’Keefe [2002] 2 IR 1. These orders enable a court to restrain a respondent from leaving a jurisdiction for a defined period and can compel the surrender of passports.
• Orders for detention, preservation and sale of property. The Irish Court may grant orders for the preservation, securing and sale of property in Ireland.
• European Account Preservation Orders (EAPO). EAPO is a bank account preservation order that prevents the transfer or withdrawal of funds up to a specified amount from an account in a participating member state of the European Union.

As noted at Question 4.1, above, several tools are available to identify assets and wrongdoers. Examples include Anton Piller orders, third-party disclosure orders, Norwich Pharmacal orders and asset disclosure orders.

In Ireland, pre-action disclosure is typically obtained through Norwich Pharmacal orders. Bankers Trust Orders are also available.

Yes, Irish courts assist such foreign proceedings. They have expressed a willingness to give effect to requests for judicial assistance wherever possible. (Cutler v Azur Pharma International III [2015] IEHC 355).

Co-operation with foreign courts and regulators is facilitated by an established framework of cross-border instruments, particularly at EU level, which supports the provision of judicial assistance. These processes generally enable effective co-operation. However, this depends on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances.

Ireland is party to EU Regulations and Conventions and International Conventions facilitating the recognition and enforcement of judgments. It is also a party to the EU Evidence Regulation (Recast). For jurisdictions outside the EU, the letters rogatory procedure may apply.

Ireland has various processes under which foreign judgments may be enforced. Judgments from jurisdictions in the EU are governed by Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 (“Brussels Recast”). Judgments from jurisdictions outside of the EU may be governed by Lugano Convention, which is applicable to countries forming part of the European Free Trade Association, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, or the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019. The enforcement of judgments from jurisdictions outside the scope of these instruments falls to be considered under the common law.

Enforcement is dependent on the jurisdiction of origin and the applicable legal framework. Within the EU, certain pre-emptive orders, including freezing orders, may be recognised and enforced under Brussels Recast. Outside the EU, foreign freezing/confiscation orders are not typically directly enforceable under Irish common law. Additionally, interim measures such as freezing orders do not constitute “judgments” under the Hague Judgments Convention and therefore fall outside its scope.

In criminal matters, the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Acts 2008 and 2023 enable applications to be made to the High Court for recognition and enforcement of external freezing/confiscation orders, provided both are accompanied by the requisite documents, such as a certified copy of the order, translations, and a statement from the court of origin outlining the grounds upon which the order is made.

Sections 604, 608, and 610 of the Companies Act 2024 respectively enable the High Court to void transactions made by insolvent companies with a creditor with a view to preferring that creditor over others, to return improperly transferred assets of an insolvent company, and to impose civil liability on company officers for reckless trading, and on any person knowingly a party to fraudulent trading.

It is generally insolvency office holders who bring the above-mentioned actions, although creditors and contributories can bring the application under section 608.

Yes, primarily via sections 608 and 604 of the 2014 Act, whereas section 610 deals with liability as opposed to tracing.

Yes, although civil proceedings may be stayed pending criminal resolution.

The Proceeds of Crime Acts 1996 to 2016 (PCAs) provides for civil forfeiture and the state’s seizure of property in the absence of a criminal conviction, separate cash forfeiture provisions are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1994.

The PCAs enable the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) to seize and obtain orders from the High Court over the proceeds of crime. Following the expiry of seven years, or where a consent disposal order is obtained, CAB may commence proceedings to transfer the proceeds to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform or such persons as the court determines.

This depends on any court order directing the distribution of funds to the victims.

Section 71 of the Statute of Limitations provides that where a limitation period is fixed under the Statute, and the action is based in fraud, or the right of action was concealed by fraud, the period does not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered or could have reasonably discovered the fraud.

While fraud does not technically extend limitation periods, it can suspend causes of action until discovery of same.

Potential defences include denial of fraud. In tracing claims, a defence may be that the property has passed to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Defendants may also raise other equitable defences, such as laches (delay) or the absence of clean hands.

Remedies include damages, an account of profits, restitution, rescission.

Yes, but it is highly discretionary.

This depends on the circumstances; examples of court orders include:

• the appointment of a receiver;
• if the asset is identifiable, the return of the asset;
• the sale of the asset; or
• an equitable lien or constructive trust.

Yes.

As discussed at Question 4.1, above, the Irish courts can grant equitable and interlocutory relief; however, this is highly discretionary. The courts may also provide cross-border assistance in accordance with private international law, which can facilitate the identification, preservation, and recovery of assets, thereby assisting claimants in their claims.

Depending on the level of urgency, interim relief can be obtained very quickly in the Irish Court, as it may be granted ex parte.

The cost of litigation in Ireland depends on several factors including the subject matter and the complexity of the case. Litigation funding by parties with no legitimate interest in the dispute is prohibited under the rules on maintenance and champerty, subject to limited exceptions.

The standard of proof for injunctive relief and the discretionary nature of asset recovery in equity.

The Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025, which proposes to strengthen the state’s capacity to deprive criminals of illicitly obtained assets, is currently progressing through the Irish legislature.

Irish courts adopt a practical and facilitative approach to asset recovery tools. In Boulbet v SumUp Ltd [2025] IEHC 285, the High Court confirmed that Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders may extend to identity verification documents where necessary to identify fraudsters, subject to strict proportionality. This reflects a practical application of established principles.

Powers v. Greymountain [2022] IEHC 599 reflects contemporary international fraud litigation trends, particularly the use of complex multijurisdictional structures and the Irish courts’ willingness to impose personal liability where companies are used as instruments of fraud. There has also been some development in the courts’ view of litigation funding (Scully v Coucal [2025] IESC 51) and a Law Reform Commission report is awaited, considering whether profit-motivated third-party litigation funding should be legalised in Ireland, which may have implications for the funding of complex claims.