The rationale behind the PEP category is clear – PEPs are people who have, or have historically, held a high political profile or have held public offices thereby being exposed to a far greater risk of money laundering as a result of corruption. If an individual falls into this category then there is no need for there to be evidence of criminality at all in order for the UWO to be issued.
The second category is potentially even wider – “serious crime” includes a large range of offences: bribery, fraud, money laundering, tax offences or any offence the court deems “sufficiently serious in the circumstances of that case”.
The agency merely has to show that the value of the property is over £50,000 and that the respondent’s known, lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property.
The orders require the target to explain the nature and extent of their interest in the property; detail how the property was obtained; and how any costs were met. Controversially, once granted, the order reverses the burden of proof from the investigating authority onto the person under investigation.
If an individual fails to comply with a UWO “without reasonable excuse” then the consequences are severe.
Firstly, the property can be considered for civil recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which does not require a criminal conviction and carries a lower standard of proof.
Secondly, regardless of whether civil recovery proceedings are commenced, the response can be used to inform other investigations.
The legislation also ensures that the individuals are totally transparent in their response by dictating that providing false or misleading statements in response to a UWO is an offence punishable by a fine and/or potential imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.
Although the information provided in response to a UWO will not usually be admissible in criminal proceedings, it will be admissible in criminal confiscation proceedings and a prosecution for some other criminal offence where, in giving evidence, the person makes a statement in proceedings that is inconsistent with that already made to the High Court.
Because of these far-reaching and serious consequences of the response to a UWO, it is imperative that any response provided is detailed, well-thought-out and supported by evidence.
UWOs so far
The first UWO ever obtained was against an individual connected to a PEP – Zamira Hajiyeva, whose husband was the former chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan.
