First unexplained wealth order may provide a welcome boost for the Serious Fraud Office

When they were introduced in 2017, Unexplained Wealth Orders ("UWOs") were hailed as an important new law enforcement tool, which would allow more robust and effective investigation of the suspected proceeds of crime.

The Criminal Finances Act 2017 added provisions to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") to create the UWOs framework, as well as account freezing orders ("AFOs"), account forfeiture orders and account forfeiture notices. What set these new orders apart from the tools already available under POCA at the time was the ease by which they could be obtained.

No prior criminal conviction is needed as a basis to apply for a UWO: a law enforcement agency may apply to the High Court in respect of an asset worth more than £50,000 where there are reasonable grounds to suspect either that the known sources of the respondent's legitimate income would have been insufficient for them to purchase the asset, or that it was obtained through unlawful conduct.¹

The effect of a UWO, if granted by the Court, can be severe. The burden of proof is shifted to the respondent, who must prove the asset was acquired legitimately to avoid forfeiture proceedings.

Since 2017, however, only a handful of UWOs have been obtained by the National Crime Agency, and some have proved difficult to enforce. Until recently, the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") had never obtained a UWO.

On 17 January 2025 that changed when the High Court granted a UWO in relation to a property suspected of being purchased with the proceeds of a complex fraud for which an individual was imprisoned in 2022. The respondent to the UWO – the owner of the property in question – is the ex-wife of the convicted individual. That appears to have satisfied a further limb of the test under POCA, whereby the High Court may grant the proposed UWO where it is satisfied that a person connected with the respondent is, or has been, involved in serious crime.²

Earlier in January, further confiscation proceedings had been brought against the convicted individual, and evidently the SFO's ongoing investigation led to it applying for the UWO, along with an accompanying interim freezing order. The respondent has 28 days to respond to the UWO and prove the property's legitimate provenance.

It is worth noting that the SFO has chosen to use a UWO at the latter stages of a case, i.e. following a prosecution, as a way of attempting to recover the proceeds of crime. Since his appointment in 2023, Director Nick Ephgrave has been keen to portray the SFO as a robust and tenacious agency, which will not hesitate to make use of the tools at its disposal. This development could therefore signal a further acceleration of enforcement efforts by the SFO. However, how the SFO makes use of the UWO to progress the case further – and how it deals with any legal challenges to the UWO – will be watched closely.

_{1 Section 362B(3) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
2 Section 362B(4) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002}

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}