Regarded as a “first class” practitioner and “standout” barrister by the directories, Andrew’s practice encompasses all areas of asset recovery, both criminal and civil, as well as corruption and the recovery of its proceeds, corporate criminal liability, civil and criminal fraud, market manipulation and abuse, and money laundering. He deals with cases both in the UK and abroad.
He has extensive experience of proceedings at all levels from first instance to the House of Lords/Supreme Court concerning the legislation governing confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. As well as proceedings relating to the making and enforcement of confiscation orders, Andrew regularly appears for and advises third parties, both corporates and individuals, involved in proceeds of crime-related proceedings, whether as victims or due to the imposition of restraint and receivership orders, and has appeared in many of the significant cases concerning civil recovery orders under POCA. As well as advising on and appearing in cases concerning the UK legislation, Andrew regularly advises on and has been involved in proceedings regarding proceeds of crime and money laundering issues in a number of Common Law offshore jurisdictions including Jersey, Guernsey, the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong.
Andrew has a significant practice in fraud, both civil and criminal, and financial crime. In the criminal context he regularly deals with cases concerning money laundering, corruption, insider dealing and corporate criminal liability in the regulatory context. He has been a member of the Serious Fraud Office’s A Panel of Junior Counsel.
In the civil context he has substantial experience of civil fraud claims and asset-recovery related proceedings in insolvency and debt recovery, together with applications for freezing orders, search orders and contempt of court in support of such proceedings. He has been appearing for the Claimant in the first substantive fraud claim brought before the DIFC Court, with ancillary freezing order and Letter of Request proceedings. He has a good working knowledge of investment funds and other financial services, and their regulation by the FSA.
Andrew often provides advice to professional services firms and companies as to their obligations under anti-money laundering legislation and potential criminal liability arising from the acts both of employees and of third parties. He has been involved in transnational internal investigations into concerns about corruption.
Andrew is frequently briefed in cases with an international element, including questions of international law and conflict of laws, and cases raising the compatibility of asset forfeiture legislation with fundamental human rights. He has been involved in cases involving over 25 jurisdictions, and is sometimes briefed to “ghost write” submissions for courts in other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions as distinct from each other as Jersey and Hungary.
Andrew is recommended by Chambers and Partners, Legal 500 and Who’s Who Legal.
Andrew is an editor and contributing author to Smith, Owen and Bodnar on Asset Recovery, published by OUP, and lectures on asset recovery, fraud and corruption here and abroad.
As well as the UK, Andrew is registered as an advocate with the DIFC Courts in Dubai.
Andrew has a working knowledge of French, German and Hungarian.
Re Boyle Transport (NI) Limited, R v Boyle and Another  EWCA Crim XXX. The circumstances in which it is appropriate to “pierce the corporate veil” in criminal confiscation proceedings.
R v Sweett Group . Part of the prosecution team in the first prosecution of a company for failing to have adequate procedures to prevent bribery under the Bribery Act 2010.
R v Smith, Peto and Wright . Prosecution of the former directors of City Link Ltd by the DTI for offences of failing to notify of imminent redundancies under s. 194 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992, following high profile of collapse of City Link Ltd.
Sanam v National Crime Agency  EWCA Civ 1234,  All ER (D) 43. Issues of proportionality and compatibility with Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR in civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of POCA.
R v Noad and Others . Prosecution for money laundering arising from a £10m boiler room fraud.
FA Premier League v Hopkins and Passlow . Private prosecution by the Premier League of two individuals running a company which sold fraudulent access to Sky UK broadcasts.
Haigh v Patel, Al Rayes and Gray . Private prosecution alleging various offences of conspiracy against officers of a company suing the prosecutor for fraud in Dubai, and the company’s former solicitor.
Vogelsang v Ladbrokes International Plc . Claim before the High Court of Gibraltar by an online poker player said to have been involved in money laundering activity through the poker platform.
GFH Capital v Haigh [2014-16]. Civil fraud claim before the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts with a value in excess of US$5 million. First time the Court has made a lasting freezing order, and issued letters of request to both the UK and Emirati courts.
National Crime Agency v Azam and Others  EWHC 3573 (QB),  Lloyd’s Rep FC 42. Scope of “estoppel” defence in civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 Proceeds of Crime Act, and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR.
Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking and Others  EWHC 1741 (QB), (2014) 158(24) SJLB 53. Application to commit to prison numerous defendants for breach of a solicitor’s undertaking, scope of “solicitor’s undertaking”, test for granting permission to bring such proceedings.
R v Fields and Others  UKSC 36,  3 WLR 23,  4 All ER 767,  2 Cr App R (S) 75,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 547,  Crim LR 756,  AC 299, Times, July 2, 2014 Supreme Court case concerning proportionality in confiscation cases and correct calculation of benefit in cases of joint obtaining of property.
GE Capital v Fell-Neumyr (2013) Commercial Court. Application to lift a freezing order obtained in aid of enforcement of a European Judgment Order.
Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd v Edwards (2013) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). Application to commit the defendant for contempt by multiple breaches of an interim injunction.
Re a Restraint Order (2011-2013) Administrative Court. Substantial restraint proceedings involving assets in multiple jurisdictions.
Edwards v Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd (2012) Central London County Court. Successful defence of a claim for allegedly unpaid winnings on bets placed, on the basis of fraud by the claimant.
Media Protection Services Ltd v Crawford & Anor  EWHC 2373 (Admin) Appeal against the order dismissing the criminal proceedings because of information laid against the respondents. The court ruled that the district judge had been correct in dismissing the criminal proceedings as the claimant’s Prosecution Director had acted unlawfully by laying the information against the respondents, he had commenced proceedings and therefore carried out a reserved legal activity within the meaning of the Legal Service Act 2007.
Premji Naran Patel v Solicitors Regulation Authority  EWHC 3373 (Admin), (2012) 156(47) SJLB 31. Whether the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules prohibit a solicitor from allowing funds to be held in his client account in relation to a transaction in which he is not also providing “legal services”, and definition of “legal services”.
R (on the application of Vuciterni and Alsat UK ltd) v Brent Magistrates’ Court and Another  EWHC 2140 (Admin). Judicial Review of search warrants obtained in breach of duty of full and frank disclosure, also whether search warrants obtained under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 permit entry to private homes.
R v Storrie, Mandaric and Redknapp (2011-12) (Southwark Crown Court). Trial of CEO, Chairman and football manager, respectively, on charges of tax evasion.
Re a Law Firm (2012) Advising an international off-shore law firm in relation to an investigation into sanction busting (with no action taken against the firm).
Re Stanford International Bank (SIB v Serious Fraud Office)(2012) (Central Criminal Court),  Lloyds Rep FC 255. Variation of an external restraint order to permit liquidators access to funds to conduct the liquidation and pursue assets. Part of the litigation following the Stanford Ponzi fraud.
R (on the application of El-Kurd) v Winchester Crown Court & SOCA (2011) EWHC 1853,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 469,  Crim LR 138,  ACD 6. Whether the discretionary power to permit law enforcement agencies to retain property under Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 extended to property seized under an unlawful warrant.
R v Clark and Severn (2011) EWCA Crim 15,  2 Cr App R (S) 55,  Crim LR 412. Correct principles to be applied in determining benefit in conspiracy cases – “essential facilitation” vs. “equity partnership” in the criminal enterprise.
R v Swann and Woolf (2011) EWCA Crim 2275,  1 Cr App R (S) 90. Appeal against sentence in the “Hampstead safety deposit boxes” case (Operation Rize).
R v Woolf and Others (2011) Crown Court. Leading junior in the “Hampstead safety deposit boxes” case.
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Amir and others (2011) EWHC 1551 (Admin). Identifying the balance to be struck between maintaining assets under the property freezing order under POCA and releasing funds for legal fees, even where suspicions that respondent not given complete disclosure of assets.
Cadogan Petroleum v Tolley (2010) High Court (Chancery Division). Claim in fraud against a number of individuals in the context of oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the Ukraine.
R v Anderson (2010) EWCA Crim 615. Correct application of the principle in R v May, Jennings v CPS, R v Green in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence to establish a defendant’s share of the proceeds of a conspiracy.
R v Piper (2010) EWCA Crim 638. Whether a breach of article 6 ECHR on the grounds of delay could justify the stay of confiscation proceedings, and whether such a breach had occurred.
Bluestream Aviation Ltd and anr v Matthews (2009) Multi-million dollar fraud claim concerning agency and purchase of aircraft. Involved asset tracing in the UK and Lichtenstein.
CPS v Nelson, CPS v Pathak, R v Paulet (2009) EWCA Crim 1573,  QB 678,  2 WLR 788,  4 All ER 666,  1 Cr App R (S) 82,  Crim LR 811,  Lloyd’s Rep FC 663, Times 18th August 2009. Abuse of process in confiscation proceedings on the grounds that the proceedings are oppressive.
R v Allpress, R v Symeou, R v Casal, R v Morris, R v Martin (2009) EWCA Crim 8,  2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 58,  Crim LR 363. The appropriate measure of benefit for couriers in money laundering cases.
Serious Organised Crime Agency v He and Chen (2009) Successful mediation of a substantial and long-running civil recovery claim.
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Pelekanos (2009) EWHC 2307 & 3575 (QB),  Lloyd’s Rep FC 177, (2009) 106(40) LSG 20. Claim for civil recovery raising questions of mode and standard of proof and giving guidance on the proper application of the mixing, tracing and following provisions of Part 5 POCA.
Sinclair v Glatt (2009) EWCA Civ 176,  1 WLR 1845,  4 All ER 724, Times April 16th, 2009. Whether a management receiver appointed under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is entitled to continue to exercise a lien over assets formerly subject to the receivership following the quashing of a confiscation order.
State of Hungary v Green (2009) Very large fraud case brought against an English CEO of a bankrupt Hungarian company brought by the Hungarian prosecution agency. Assisting with tactical advice and drafting submissions.
Grayson v United Kingdom, Barnham v United Kingdom (2008) ECtHR, Appn. 19955/05, Times 2nd October 2008. Compatibility with Article 6 ECHR of findings of “hidden assets” in confiscation proceedings.
R v Green (2008) UKHL 30,  1 AC 1053,  2 WLR 1151,  4 All ER 119,  2 Cr. App. R. 30,  1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 32,  Crim LR 740, Times 19th May, 2008 (linked to R v May  UKHL 28, Jennings v CPS  UKHL 29. Definition of “obtains” in confiscation legislation, apportionment of benefit, proportionality and requirements of Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR.
R v Wright (2008) EWCA Crim 3207,  Cr. App. R. (S.) 45,  Crim LR 373. Considered the appropriate criteria for the making of a Financial Reporting Order.
(1)AP (2) U Ltd v (1) Crown Prosecution Service, (2) Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (2007) EWCA Crim 3128,  1 Cr. App. R. 39,  HRLR 16, (2008) 105(2) LSG 29, (2008) 152(2) SJLB 29. Compatibility of section 41(4) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with requirements of Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 6 ECHR. Question certified for House of Lords.
Amadeo Hotels Ltd Partnership and Others v Zaman and Others (2007) EWHC 295 (Comm),  All ER (D) 260. Mareva proceedings in support of substantive litigation in the United States against a UK barrister and his wife, part of the litigation concerning Prince Jefri Bolkiah.
R v Bewick (2007) EWCA Crim 3297,  2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31. The jurisdiction of the Crown Court to consider complex issues of fact and law in compensation proceedings where confiscation proceedings had failed.
R v Michel and Gallichan (2007) Royal Court of Jersey (2006-2007). Largest money laundering prosecution in Jersey history, advisory; including three hearings before Jersey Court of Appeal and appearing as junior before the Privy Council.
R v Smith (2007) ILCC. Largest confiscation order ever made (£41m). Reported in business pages of all broadsheets. Concerned off-shore trust and corporate structures, asset tracing, detail of confiscation law.
Togher v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (2007) EWCA Civ 686,  QB 476,  UKHRR 1079,  2 WLR 82,  All ER (D) 73 (Jul). Retrospective application of confiscation enforcement, Article 7 ECHR.
McKinsley v Crown Prosecution Service (2006) EWCA Civ 1092,  1 WLR 3420, Times August 22nd 2006, Independent October 12 2006. Jurisdiction of the court to revisit findings of hidden assets on an application for a certificate of inadequacy under Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
R (Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office) v Criminal Cases Review Commission and Others (2006) EWHC 3064 (Admin),  1 All ER 383,  1 Cr. App. R. 30,  Crim LR 383,  ACD 39. Whether the CCRC is bound to follow the Court of Appeal practice in change of law cases, particularly references of convictions in money laundering cases post-Saik.
R v Hashash (2006) EWCA Crim 2518,  STC 1158. Whether MTIC fraud committed without any underlying trading activity constituted VATable economic activity for the purposes of the VAT legislation.
R v Suchedina and Others (2006) EWCA Crim 2543,  1 Cr. App. R. 23,  Crim LR 301. Elements of actus reus of conspiracy to commit money laundering offences post-Saik.
Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Green (2005) EWHC 3168 Admin, Times February 27, 2006. Leading case on the correct approach to civil recovery proceedings and elements of a claim for a civil recovery order.
R (on the application of Leigh) v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court (2005) EWHC 1828 (Admin). Procedural requirements in civil cash forfeiture proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court.
Re K and Others (2005) EWCA Crim 619, (2006) BCC 362, Times 15th March 2005. Principles to be applied in the making of management receivership orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act, piercing the corporate veil.
Re Saggar (2005) EWCA Civ 174,  1 WLR 2964, (2005) 102 (17) LSG 31, (2005) 149 SJLB 268, Times 14th March 2005. Applicability of Article 6.1 to applications to revisit confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Act.
Symes v Philips and others (2005) EWCA Civ 533,  1 WLR 2986, Independent 13th May 2005. Various issues concerning sentencing for contempt of court in the context of substantial Chancery action, Article 6.
R (P) v (1) Mersey Care NHS Trust (2) Dr. Mulligan (3) Home Secretary  EWHC 994 (Admin),  1 MHLR 107. Mental health, continued detention in secure conditions, Article 8 ECHR.
Berry Trade and Others v Moussavi and Others (2002) EWCA Civ 477,  1 WLR 1910,  BPIR 881, Times 10th April 2002, Independent 23rd April 2002. Right to representation and to seek legal aid in proceedings for contempt of court in the context of a substantial Commercial Court action, Article 6.
Cummings v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) EWCA Civ 45,  1 WLR 822, (2001) 145 SJLB 27, Times 27th February 2001, Independent 5th March 2001. Recall of mandatory life sentence prisoners.
B (a minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions (2000) 2 AC 428,  2 WLR 452,  1 All ER 833,  2 Cr. App. R. 65,  Crim LR 403, (2000) 97(11) 36, (2000) SJLB 108 Times 25th February 2000, Independent 10th April 2000. Honest but mistaken belief as to fact in strict liability offences.
R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another, ex parte Tamosius & Partners (a firm) (2000) 1 WLR 453,  STC 1077,  BTC 404, (1999) 96(45) LSG 34, (1999) 143 SJLB 279,  Crim LR 390, Times 10th November 1999, Independent 12th November 1999. Judicial review of grant to and execution of search warrant by Inland Revenue, legal professional privilege.
R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Johnson (1999) 2 Cr App R 51, Independent, January 25, 1999. Judicial review of extension of custody time limits questioning whether the conduct of the Forensic Science Service was part of the conduct of the prosecution for the purposes of seeking an extension.
Stafford and Carter v Trinidad and Tobago (1999) 1 WLR 2026 (Note),  1 LRC 91. Death row appeal to the Privy Council, consequences of erroneous application of murder/felony rule, joint enterprise in murder.
Andrew accepts instructions under the Bar Council Standard Contractual Terms, details of which can be found here.
“a “true expert” on matters of criminal and civil asset recovery”
“a “first class” practitioner”
“has a “sterling reputation””
“extensive experience and “strong command of the law”.
Who’s Who Legal: UK Bar 2016
“A standout junior”
“He is particularly well placed to advise on cases involving overlapping civil and criminal aspects.”
“Helpful, proactive and timely.”
“Impresses with his advocacy and thought process when handling confiscation proceedings in particular.”
“Admired by peers and instructing solicitors, who value his “encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject [confiscation and forfeiture].”
“He’s head and shoulders above everyone else and a go-to counsel for this kind of work.”
“He’s one of the leading juniors and his advocacy is very smooth.”
“Has great tactical awareness and an encyclopaedic knowledge of this area”
Chambers and Partners
“Very strong with technical legal and regulatory matters.”
“Supreme at POCA work.”
Legal 500, 2015
Andrew is listed in the following directories:
Chambers and Partners (POCA and Asset Recovery; Financial Crime- both Tier 1)
Legal 500 (Fraud: Criminal including asset recovery; Business and Regulatory Crime (including Global Investigations- both Tier 1)
Who’s Who Legal – The International Who’s Who of Asset Recovery Lawyers; Global Investigations Review (leading lawyer); UK Bar 2016: Civil Fraud, Investigations