Meaning of proper enquiries in relation to application to discharge an Unexplained Wealth Order

G came to the UK aged 16 in January 2018 on a student visa to attend boarding school, then obtained a student visa in September 2022 to attend university on a three-year undergraduate course. Then in September 2021, aged 19 years 9 months, the G  purchased a residential apartment and parking space for £4 million with no lender or encumbrance. Furthermore in November 2023, aged 21 years 11 months, G purchased a tenanted apartment for £1.173 million with no lender or encumbrance, generating rental income. G held six Barclays bank accounts with aggregate balances of £799,300.

G had no declared income or earning records in the UK. Her student visa restricted her ability to work. On 16 June 2025, His Majesty's  Land Registry alerted the National Crime Agency (NCA) to a transfer application for the tenanted apartment from G to a named individual for no value, dated 15 May 2025. Open source materials, including BBC and Straits Times articles, reported that G's uncle was one of ten individuals arrested, convicted and sentenced in Singapore in August 2023 for money laundering offences, with assets forfeited. G's father was identified as one of 17 wanted individuals who surrendered assets worth $1.85 billion and was barred from returning to Singapore.

The NCA applied without notice to the High Court on 11 July 2025 for an unexplained wealth order (UWO) and interim freezing order (IFO). The judge granted both orders on 18 July 2025. G applied on 17 September 2025 to discharge the orders, which came before another judge for reconsideration afresh.

G submitted there was material non-disclosure by way of failure to make proper enquiries before making the application. The NCA should have pursued enquiries with the identified solicitors and agents about their due diligence relating to potential money laundering before applying to the High Court. The NCA failed to undertake obvious enquiries from the law enforcement authorities of Singapore, relying solely on open source materials without independent support or corroboration from state authorities who could confirm accuracy and provide authoritative information. That the NCA's approach involved a material error of law because both the derivative offence of money laundering and the predicate offence must satisfy dual criminality. Singapore's crime of providing facilities for online betting for gamblers in China is not a crime in England and Wales where conduct is licensed. The Court should exercise its dynamic jurisdiction considering the position afresh and cannot be satisfied as to the true picture without these enquiries, which remain outstanding even at the discharge hearing.

The NCA submitted it had undertaken proper and reasonable enquiries including Land Registry records, statutory information requests to sellers, information from letting agents, and evidence from the Home Office and His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). There was no legal requirement to pursue other statutory powers prior to applying for a UWO and IFO. The evidenced picture regarding money laundering with predicate offences including online scam frauds satisfied dual criminality as such offences would constitute crimes in England and Wales.
 

Held

Appeal dismissed.

The Court dismissed G's application to discharge the UWO and IFO. G was ordered to comply with the UWO by 4pm on 10 April 2026. The IFO was to remain in force until expiry of the response period, determination period and applicable 48 hour period as defined in Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. G was ordered to pay the NCA's costs summarily assessed by consent at £76,862.87. The interim anonymity order was continued pending a further oral hearing to consider its continuation, with notification to the press. The Court refused permission to amend the grounds for discharge on the basis the new ground regarding dual criminality was unsustainable.

The Court held that proper enquiries before making the application means enquiries undertaken prior to the application, not ongoing parallel enquiries whilst the UWO remained paused. The NCA must enjoy some latitude as to the enquiries considered appropriate. The NCA had undertaken proper and reasonable enquiries including Land Registry records, section 7 statutory information requests to sellers, information from letting agents, and evidence from the Home Office and HMRC establishing a solid evidenced picture of unencumbered high-value properties purchased by a young individual on student visas with no declared UK income.

There was no legal requirement to pursue formal steps requiring information from solicitors prior to making an application for a UWO. Nothing in the statutory scheme mandates the use of other statutory powers prior to a successful UWO application. The red flag development of the no value transfer alerted on 16 June 2025 justified the NCA speedily proceeding with its application. There was no principled basis for saying the NCA is disentitled from acting on open source information from BBC and Straits Times reporting information emanating from legal process in Singapore.

G chose not to put forward a single piece of information illustrating any unreliability of the open source material or any clearly contradictory material as was present in existing case law. On dual criminality, the evidenced picture specifically extended beyond providing facilities for online gambling to include crimes such as online scam frauds, which are predicate offences satisfying dual criminality as they would constitute offences in England and Wales. This was sufficient basis for meeting the serious crime requirement.

Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.