Varsha Bhadresh Gohil v Bhadresh Babulal Gohil & Ors [2025] EWHC 3646 (Fam)

Case No FD02D03678

[2025] EWHC 3646 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 28/05/2025

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS

Between

VARSHA BHADRESH GOHILApplicant

Morgan Sirikanda and Amiot Vollenweider (directly instructed under the public access scheme) for Applicant

The First Respondent in person for in person

for The Second Respondent was not represented

The Third Respondent in person for in person

for The Fourth Respondent did not appear

The Fifth and Eighth Respondent in person for in person

Julian Christopher KC (instructed by Keystone Law) for Sixth and Seventh Respondents

Jonathan Kinnear KC, Tom Tyler and Michael Newbold (instructed by the CPS Proceeds of Crime) for Intervenor

Hearing Hearing dates: 17 th,18 th,19 th,20 th,21 st,24 th,25 th 26 th,27 th 28 th,31stMarch 2025

1 st,2 nd.3 rd& 4 th of April 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 11th June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail.

The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published. Publication was delayed as a stay on publication was in place until the determination of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. That was determined on 20 April 2026 and the stay on publication lifted.

Williams J :

[1]At the conclusion of his judgment in the Supreme Court and when remitting the Wife’s claim for ancillary relief for rehearing, Lord Wilson said: “…Moylan J faces an unenviable task in keeping the scale of his enquiry within tight bounds’ That was said on 14 October 2015. Only now some 9 and ½ years later has that enquiry been undertaken.

[2]The name Gohil will linger long in the memories of lawyers and judges across a range of jurisdictions. Whether, as has been suggested, this is the most extensively litigated ‘family’ dispute in legal history I do not know. The fact that the divorce petition was issued on 20 May 2002 and that this judgment on the financial remedy application is being delivered in April 2025 hints at the tortuous route that the case has followed. In May 2002, the Wife and the Husband were 37 years old and the three children were 10, 8 and 5. The Husband was a successful commercial solicitor in practice in the West End and the family led a life commensurate with that; the children attending expensive fee-paying schools and the family living in a large ‘family’ home in Chislehurst. In April 2004, a modest ancillary relief Consent Order was made by Baron J and decree nisi was pronounced in July 2004. However, that was certainly not the end of the dispute, not even the end of the beginning, for the 21 years since have seen the most extraordinary implosion of a family play out through the criminal, family and civil courts and even this judgment may not represent the beginning of the end. The Husband and Wife are now 60 and their children are 33, 31 and 28. Along the way: i) the Husband was convicted of money laundering and forgery, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, struck off and had a Confiscation Order made in the sum of £28,191,787 (subsequently varied down a little.) ii) The Wife applied to set aside the Consent Order of 30 April 2004 which was granted by Moylan J (as he then was) and a re-trial of the financial remedy claim was listed for June 2014. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the Husband’s appeal against the set-aside of the ancillary relief order on 13 March 2014 and so the hearing was vacated. The Wife appealed to the Supreme Court and on 14 October 2015 her appeal was allowed, and the Court of Appeal orders were set aside. iii) On 20 May 2016 the Wife’s financial remedy claim recommenced and was listed for final hearing on 1 April 2019 but Mostyn J (who had taken over as the allocated judge) vacated that hearing concluding that the financial remedy claim should be adjourned until the confiscation order proceedings against the Husband had concluded. Those proceedings commenced on 14 September 2020 but did not conclude until 24 July 2023 by which time Mostyn J had retired and the financial remedy claim was re-allocated to me. The Husband has appealed against the Confiscation Order and permission to appeal was refused by Wall J but the application has been renewed and is awaiting a hearing before the Court of Appeal in June 2025. iv) In January 2018 the Husband’s father (the Second Respondent in the financial remedy proceedings) died. He was estranged from the Husband and the Husband’s mother (The Third Respondent in the Financial Remedy proceedings) and he had made the Wife his Executor and a beneficiary of his estate including a 1/3 share in ‘Highlander’ the family home. Litigation ensued in the Land Registry Tribunal in connection with the Third Respondent removing a Form A restriction on the title of Highlander. Further litigation ensued in the Chancery Division lasting until 2024 when Deputy Master Lampert rejected the Third Respondent’s claim that the will was invalid because of ‘undue influence, fraudulent calumny, false representation and fraud or forgery’ and refused her application to remove the Wife as the Executrix.

[3]More of the history is referred to in the Chronology, which is annexed to this Judgment, but it will be evident even from that short summary that the amount of information which is available, the volume of commentary which is possible and the task of keeping a grasp on the issues and the evidence which bears upon them is unusually complicated. Lord Wilson was prescient in identifying the unenviable task facing the trial judge, although in October 2015 he could never have envisaged that it would be Williams J seeking to determine the limits of the enquiry given I was about to appear a few weeks later in that court as an advocate. At the heart of this dispute though, the ultimate issues are those encountered in any financial remedy claim and the task of the court is to evaluate the evidence, reach conclusions of fact on the balance of probabilities and then to apply the principles of sharing, needs and compensation in an appropriate manner.

[4]In this hearing, the Wife has been represented pro bono by Mr Morgan Sirikanda and Mr Amiot Vollenweider. The Husband has appeared in person. The other 7 Respondents were joined because they were identified as the legal owners of assets which the Wife claimed (or the Crown Court had found) were owned by the Husband. Mr Christopher KC appeared for Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati as he had in the Confiscation proceedings. Mr Kinnear KC, Mr Tyler and Mr Newbold appeared for the CPS who became intervenors as they held a Restraint Order over the Husband’s assets and, since 2023, a Confiscation Order.

[5]The history of the case comprises some significant ‘milestones’ with much distance between them. I shall refer to the most significant hearings as they appear to me. The long journeys between are incorporated into the Chronology.

Significant Litigation Events

[6]Given the volume of material – that before me numbers some 9,000 pages – and the extensive evidence and submissions I have heard in the course of this hearing I will throughout this judgment seek to record that which seems most material to the decisions I have to reach. This hearing was listed for 4 weeks with a week reading, 2 weeks of evidence, 2 days for submissions and 3 days for judgment writing. On top of the huge consumption of court time that the case has taken in the Family Division alone that seemed to me a proportionate allocation of time. In fact, some further days have had to be allotted to it to complete the judgment, but the reality is that to read all the material, to record even the substance of all the oral, written and documentary evidence, to record and evaluate all the submissions and to give decisions on each and every point that might emerge from them would be the work of months if not years. One particular aspect which emerges from judgments of those who have heard parts of the Gohil cases before me (Moylan J, DM Lampert, HHJ Tomlinson) is the extent to which inconsistent evidence of submissions emerge (from the Husband and his family mainly but also the Wife) and, given that the Husband has been found to have forged documents and to have acted dishonestly even on his own account, attempting to reconcile the evidence to try to discern a consistent and clear history is probably impossible without the investment of many more months of time and far deeper mining of the evidence with forensic accountants, document examiners and the like. Fortunately, my task is to reach decisions on the disputed facts on the balance of probabilities.

The Consent Order of Baron J of 30 April 2004

[7]Following the issuing of the Wife’s application for ancillary relief in 2002, a lengthy inquiry was undertaken. During the course of the financial remedy proceedings, the Husband asserted through affidavits and his Form E that his only significant capital asset was a one third interest in an account held in the name of Odessa Management Ltd with a bank in Switzerland. The Husband had set up Odessa Management Ltd, a BVI company, in 1996. It apparently had one bearer share held at Schroder’s bank, Switzerland, this bank being the one which held the company’s bank accounts. He asserted his only income was from his legal practice and that this was modest.

[8]In the course of the proceedings – which are charted in the judgment of Moylan J of 25 September 2012 – a forensic accountant was instructed to consider whether the Husband had an interest in various offshore companies and assets. The Wife had gained access to the Husband’s lap-top whilst he was abroad and had obtained many documents which were covered by the Hildebrand principles. On the basis of evidence provided by (amongst others) Mr Chaturvedi of Merrill Lynch, in New York, that the Husband had only Power of Attorney and no personal interest in assets such as a bank account with Merrill Lynch in the name of an entity called Parabola, the forensic accountant concluded that the evidence supported the Husband’s rebuttal.

[9]When the application came before Baron J for FDR an agreement was reached. That order provided for the payment of a lump sum to the Wife of £270,000 payable in instalments of £100,000 within two months of the order and £170,000 payable on exchange of contracts for the purchase by the Wife of a property. The Wife did not purchase a property, but the second instalment was paid in June 2009 pursuant to further orders made by the court. The Husband was also ordered to pay periodical payments for the Wife at the rate of £500 per calendar month and for each of the three children of the family at the rate of £333.33 per month.

[10]The order contained Recital 14 which said:

“and upon it being recorded that the petitioner believes that the first respondent [the husband] has not provided full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances, although this is disputed by the first respondent, but is compromising her claims in the terms set out in this consent order despite this in order to achieve finality”

The Judgment of Moylan J on Set Aside: 25 September 2012

[11]The Wife issued her application alleging serious intentional material non-disclosure on 3 July 2007. This was founded upon her own suspicions but more importantly information she had received from the Husband’s father. Due to the criminal proceedings being commenced against the Husband – he being charged in September 2008 - the original final hearing of that application which was listed for 10 October 2008 was adjourned and finally determined some four years later in September 2012. In the course of that application, an issue arose within the Wife’s application for disclosure from the Crown Prosecution Service. The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened, and Moylan J determined that application on 30 May 2012 following which the set-aside application hearing concluded in June after which Moylan J reserved judgment. In the meantime, the CPS and the Secretary of State lodged an appeal in relation to the use to which material provided pursuant to a ‘Mutual Legal Assistance’ request (MLA) could be put. The outcome of that appeal SSHD and CPS -v-Gohil

[2012] EWCA Civ 1550

was: “[36] It follows that, unless the requested country consents to its wider use, there is a statutory prohibition on the use of evidence [obtained from another country under the 2003 Act] for any purpose other than that specified in the request without the consent of the requested authority. The prohibition applies as much to the use of evidence in other criminal investigations and proceedings as it does to its use in civil proceedings of any description.. [40] Section 9 (2) of the 2003 act clearly prohibits the subsequent use of documents and other articles obtained….. even where they have been adduced in evidence in open court….” [41] Thus Mrs Gohil cannot adduce the documents. But although she cannot adduce the documents, she can use the information contained in them as a springboard for conducting her own enquiries with a view to obtaining other evidence on which she can rely without contravening section 9 (2) of the 2003 act.

[12]In the course of his judgment on the set aside, Moylan J relied on statements made in open court in the criminal proceedings in particular evidence provided by Mr Chaturvedi of Merrill Lynch which contradicted that which had been available in 2004. As the Supreme Court later noted what reliance could be placed in a re-hearing of the financial remedy claims would be a decision for the trial judge and as it happens and as is identified elsewhere in this judgment, the US Department of Justice and the relevant authorities in Mauritius, Austria, the Isle of Man and Guernsey have now provided their consent.

[13]The Wife, the Husband and the Husband’s father gave evidence. The Wife relied on various items of evidence in support of her contention that the Husband was guilty of serious and material financial non-disclosure and that he was not reliant on his drawings as a partner at Arlingtons Sharmas but had substantial undeclared capital and income from other sources. The evidence she relied on comprised the following. i) A letter to the Husband’s father dated 3 December 2001 purportedly written by the Husband in which he asserted he was the true owner of two properties held in the father’s name. ii) An affidavit from the Husband’s father sworn on 30 March 2007 in which he said that properties purchased in his name in India were purchased on behalf of the Husband, that the Husband had sought to persuade him to transfer the former matrimonial homes from the joint names of himself and his Wife into their names and the name of Imxal Discretionary Trust (the Husband’s previously set up Trust); that the Husband had built up a great deal of wealth from his work in Africa and had mentioned owning accounts particularly in Mauritius and other offshore tax havens and that he had paid for at least one of his cars and other expenses from the Sunfor Trust. He also denied having any interest in the Odessa accounts and said his signature on the beneficial owner identity form was not his and had been forged. He also denied having any interest in accounts in bank Indosuez Gibraltar and NatWest Gibraltar. iii) A statement of truth by the Husband’s mother dated 18 September 2006 sent to the Land Registry in which she asserted that the father had deserted her in August 2001, had left her penniless, and had had no contact with him since early 2002. That was wholly inconsistent with the Husband’s case that the Odessa funds were held for the benefit of the Husband, his father and mother in equal shares. iv) A letter from the Husband’s father to the Wife dated 25th of June 2007 in which he referred to a payment of £15,700 to Hemptons in Mauritius which was made by the Husband. v) Evidence produced in the Crown Court from Mr Chaturvedi which wholly contradicted the material which he had provided to the Forensic Accountant in 2004. In this, he said that documents provided by IMM at the time an account was opened in the name of Parabola International identified Mr Gohil as the beneficial owner of Parabola. He said the Husband appeared to be a successful businessman and sophisticated investor who he saw from time to time between 2000-07. The assets in Parabola account varied in that period from $1.1m - $2.15m. Moylan J concluded that he could not determine whether Mr Chaturvedi’s assertions were true, but they raised a significant issue as to whether the Merrill Lynch funds were the Husband’s. Police interview evidence also demonstrated that the Husband was the only person issued with a credit card on the Parabola account; the Husband maintained he mainly bought items for Mr Shamutete although he used it for himself once or twice.

[14]The Husband maintained that the contents of his father’s affidavit was untrue and that his mother’s evidence only meant his father had taken all the funds they had accumulated. He produced evidence that Odessa funds were exhausted in 2006 and the account closed in mid-2007 but this was demonstrated to be false when Odessa statements were disclosed showing it had £79k in it as at December 2007 and that it had been replenished in 2004/5/6 from funds which could not have been from the Husband’s drawings on Arlingtons Sharmas. Moylan J found the Husband to be unable to explain the inconsistency.

[15]The Husband’s evidence as to the purchase and source of funds for the 2 Raj Classic flats which the Wife suggested were beneficially his was so varied and confusing that Moylan J said “I found it difficult to make sense of the husbands inconsistent evidence on this issue and found his answers entirely lacking in credibility”. The Husband’s evidence as to funds paid to Hemptons was also found to be inconsistent and contradictory.

[16]Moylan J rejected the Wife’s allegation that the Consent Order of 2004 had been agreed without her being consulted or informed of the detailed terms and that she had been pressurised into accepting it. He considered that the extent of the litigation had led the Wife to lose any objectivity about the proceedings. He also rejected the Wife’s allegation that the forensic accountant had been surreptitiously provided with additional documentation by the Husband.

[17]Moylan J recorded the following: [33] according to the prosecutors note prepared for the sentencing hearing on 7 March 2011 one of the means used by the husband to effect money laundering was to use bank accounts in the names of other clients, but over which he had power of attorney, to launder money and to disguise the true owner of the funds passing through the accounts and thereby to inhibit investigation. Another means was to create false documents which,…. The husband had done for another client of his… [34] On 9 September 2009 the Husband was charged with further offences of money-laundering and conspiracy to defraud….. The fraud involved the dishonest diversion of $37 million from two states. The prosecutor’s case was that the Husband was the architect of the fraud.

[18]Moylan J concluded as follows: [90] I am satisfied that the husband failed to give full and frank disclosure of his true financial circumstances during the course of the substantive ancillary relief proceedings and that his failure is of sufficient materiality to justify granting the wife’s application for a rehearing of her claim for financial relief….. In my view there is strong evidence that… The husband did engage in intentional nondisclosure…. It appears to me extremely unlikely that the husband’s business activities changed in and after 2004 save that significantly there is no specific evidence of criminality prior to 2005. It seems to me improbable that the rewards obtained by the husband were as he asserted, limited to his very modest partnership income when he was providing such a valuable service to other clients. [101] where did the monies come from that were in the Odessa accounts in 2007? Why did the husband assert that the account was depleted and then closed if it was not an attempt to hide the existence of other resources? The amounts might appear relatively modest in respect of the Odessa accounts. But it is the fact that they existed which is important because they in turn reveal the likely existence of other resources which were not disclosed in 2004. They also demonstrate that the husband had available to him other sources of resources than merely his partnership income. [102] the inconsistent evidence which the husband gave in respect of the purchase of the Raj classic flats in 2006 2007… Can be easily explained if he was seeking to distance himself from the funds used to purchase the property but, as so often when false evidence is given, he was unable to maintain a consistently false account. He needed to seek to distance himself from the funds because he could not otherwise explain how, with his modest declared income, he was able to fund the purchase. [103] the evidence from the criminal proceedings shows that the husband was engaged in lucrative business relationships wholly outside the scope of his solicitors partnership. It is clear that these became (at least in part) criminal in 2005 and perhaps indeed before. However, the way in which the husband operated his business activities significantly predates 2004 and dates back at least to 1997 or 1996. In my judgement, it is not credible to suggest that the husband did not benefit from these business activities beyond the amounts received by him through his solicitors partnership and being on the amounts he said were generated through the Odessa accounts as set out in his affidavit evidence. He was operating as a trusted financial manager and would have received benefits at a level commensurate with the level of trust demonstrated for example, by the fact that on some accounts he was the sole signatory.

[19]Moylan J set aside only paragraph 5 of the 30 April 2004 order (which dismissed the Wife’s claims) solely on the basis of a decision of the Court of Appeal which would have rendered the lump sum paid to the Wife liable to the Restraint Order had the lump sum order been set aside; see para 106. He said any other parts of the order could be set aside once the Wife’s application had been determined.

[20]Subsequently the Court of Appeal allowed the Husband’s appeal against the set aside. The Wife appealed and a 7 Justice Supreme Court restored Moylan J’s order on the basis that on the admissible evidence (stripping out MLA material) Moylan J would properly have found the Husband to have been guilty of material non-disclosure in 2004; Gohil-v-Gohil

[2015] UKSC 61

. They said “…it is clear that over the 8 days Moylan J did conduct a full fact finding hearing and did find as a fact, no doubt on the balance of probabilities, that the husband had been guilty of [material] nondisclosure.” [25]

[21]From paragraph 36-40, Lord Wilson identified the evidence that could be relied on and its impact. [35] I will summarise the clearly admissible evidence before Moylan J under three headings. I will also refer to his appraisal of it and ask whether, as the husband suggests, the appraisal can realistically be taken to have been contaminated by the attention which the judge paid to the evidence which was inadmissible by virtue of the 2003 Act. The husband's father [36] The evidence of the husband's father ("the father") was not only admissible. It was highly significant.(a) The father said that, although a flat in a suburb of Mumbai known as Bhayander, which had been purchased in 1994, had at the husband's request been placed in his, the father's, name, the husband had provided the purchase price. In the presentation of his resources on 30 April 2004 the husband had alleged that he had no interest in the flat in Bhayander.

(b) The father said that, although a flat in Ashoka, Mumbai, which had been purchased in 1999, had at the husband's request also been placed in his, the father's, name, the husband had provided the purchase price by paying a Mr Saldhana who had paid the builders. The father admitted that he had later sold the flat and kept the proceeds. In the presentation of his resources on 30 April 2004 the husband had alleged that he had never had an interest in the flat in Ashoka and that he had no interest in the proceeds of its sale.

(c) The father said that prior to 2001 the husband had purchased a car with funds taken from the Sunfor Trust. The evidence on 30 April 2004 suggested that the Sunfor Trust owned an offshore company, Sunfor Commercial Inc, which was the registered owner of a property in Sydney Street, Chelsea. But the husband had at that time alleged that he had no interest in the trust.

(d) The father referred to the husband's purchase of a new Mercedes SL Convertible in 1998 for about £43,000. In the presentation of his resources on 30 April 2004 the husband had alleged that the father had paid for the vehicle. But in his evidence to Moylan J the father denied that he had paid for any part of it.

(e) By letter sent to the wife soon after he had sworn his affidavit, the father referred to a BMW 300 motor car which, so he said, the husband had registered in his, the father's, name without his knowledge. Upon its sale in 1999 the price of £15,700 had therefore been payable to him, the father, and had been paid into his bank account in Orpington. With the letter to the wife, the father enclosed a copy of the letter which he had then sent to the bank in Orpington. He alleged that it was in the husband's handwriting and that he, the father, had done no more than to sign it. The letter instructed the bank to transfer £15,700 to an account in Mauritius for the benefit of Hempton International Ltd ("Hempton"). In the presentation of his resources on 30 April 2004 the husband had alleged that he had never had an interest in Hempton.

(f) To his affidavit the father exhibited a statement dated 5 April 1997 relating to an account in the name of himself and his ("the mother") with Banque Indosuez, Gibraltar. He averred that he had not opened the account and, until he had been shown the statement, he had known nothing about the account.

(g) The father referred to an account in the name of Odessa Management Ltd ("Odessa") with Bank Schroder, Geneva. The ownership of Odessa had been in issue in the proceedings which concluded on 30 April 2004. The husband had then alleged that he held a one-third interest in Odessa and that the father and the mother each also held a one-third interest. But in his evidence to Moylan J the father averred that he had never paid funds into Odessa and had no interest in it; and that his signature on a document dated 8 July 1996, by which he appeared to declare to the bank that he was one of its three beneficial owners, had been forged. [37] If true, these seven aspects of the father's evidence manifestly established large-scale material non-disclosure on the part of the husband on 30 April 2004. In that Moylan J attached substantial importance to the evidence later held to have been inadmissible by virtue of the 2003 Act, he no doubt considered that it was unnecessary for him to recite the father's evidence in the detail in which I have recited it in para 36 above. Nevertheless he specifically referred to each of the seven aspects of it apart from that to which I have referred at (d). Moylan J noted that, other than to admit the allegation at (e) and to aver that the transfer to Hempton was by way of repayment of a debt, the husband had denied the father's allegations and he recorded his counsel's submission that the estrangement between the husband and the father should lead him to afford little, if any, weight to the allegations. The judge concluded however that the father's evidence was "apparently credible". In one ground of his decision the judge, as noted in para 24 above, wrongly applied the criteria propounded in the Ladd case and his description of the father's evidence reflects the third criterion, namely that the evidence should be "apparently credible". The judge concluded, by contrast, that aspects of the evidence of the husband to which he had earlier referred were "to put it mildly, unconvincing and inconsistent". [38] The husband's contention before this court is that the judge's preference for the evidence of the father rather than for the evidence of himself may partly have been induced by a low opinion of his general credibility derived from the inadmissible evidence. Moylan J was of course well aware that a person who has been dishonest in relation to one matter may well be telling the truth in relation to another matter; and the terms of his judgment well demonstrate the discharge of his duty to survey the factual disputes between the father and the husband on their merits. Insofar, however, as Moylan J took into account that he had been guilty of dishonesty in other respects, such was a perception likely to have been derived from something quite other than the inadmissible evidence. It was far more likely to have been derived from the fact that in 2010 the husband had been found guilty of five offences of money-laundering under the 2002 Act, committed in and after 2005, and that he had then pleaded guilty to a further eight analogous offences, for all of which he had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling ten years. Transactions in Odessa [39] Moylan J stated that the evidence to which he attributed the greatest weight was not only the evidence much of which was later held to have been inadmissible but also the evidence in relation to the US dollar and sterling accounts held by Odessa with Bank Schroder. The latter evidence was, in summary, that: (a) on 25 May 2007 the husband stated, in answer to a questionnaire, that the accounts were almost depleted, retained only balances to cover guarantees for credit cards and were about to be closed; and (b) on 3 July 2007 his solicitors stated that the accounts had been closed; but (c) on 9 July 2007 £40,000 was paid into the sterling account; and (d) on 18 July 2007 $90,000 was paid into, and then out of, the dollar account; and (e) by November 2007 the sterling account held about £79,000. Moylan J stated that the husband had been unable to explain the inconsistency between (a) and (b), on the one hand, and (c), (d) and (e), on the other. The funds identified at (c), (d) and (e) were, said the judge, relatively modest, although no doubt he did not, in this respect, forget the modesty of the capital provision agreed to be made for the wife on 30 April 2004. The judge found, however, that the husband's drawings from his solicitors' partnership, said by the husband to have been only £18,000 in 2004 and only £13,000 in 2005 and again in 2006, had been manifestly insufficient to generate these funds and that the husband had been unable credibly to explain their source. The judge proceeded to infer, in my view legitimately, that, had the husband been willing truthfully to explain their source, the trail would be likely to have led to the discovery of other assets which ought to have been disclosed in 2004. Purchase of further flats [40] In support of his conclusion Moylan J also referred to the purchase of two adjoining flats in Mumbai in 2006 or 2007, with which, on any view, the husband had been associated. The judge noted a variety of inconsistencies in the husband's explanations of the source of the purchase price in his written reply to a questionnaire, in the course of a hearing for directions before Baron J, in his written response to her ensuing order and in his oral evidence before Moylan J himself. The husband's explanations, so the judge concluded, were entirely lacking in credibility. Adverse inferences [41] The husband argues that if, from the evidence in relation to the funds held by Odessa and to the purchase of the further, adjoining, flats in Mumbai, there was any ground for inferring that in 2006 and 2007 he held undisclosed assets, there remained no ground for inferring that he held them in 2004. In the light of his conviction for offences committed no earlier than 2005, any such assets, so his argument runs, were clearly the product of his criminal activities. On examination the argument is as unsound as at first sight it is unattractive. For it fails to allow for the role of adverse inferences in the court's generation of its factual conclusions. In Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd

[2013] UKSC 34

[2013] 2 AC 415

, Lord Sumption quoted at para 44 the following statement of Lord Lowry in R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p TC Coombs & Co

[1991] 2 AC 283

, 300:

"In our legal system generally, the silence of one party in face of the other party's evidence may convert that evidence into proof in relation to matters which are, or are likely to be, within the knowledge of the silent party and about which that party could be expected to give evidence."

Lord Sumption added at para 45 that "judges exercising family jurisdiction are entitled to draw on their experience and to take notice of the inherent probabilities when deciding what an uncommunicative husband is likely to be concealing". The husband was well aware that the inquiry conducted by Moylan J was into the extent of his assets on 30 April 2004. It is clear that he held assets in 2006 and 2007 and he must have been aware of their origin. Had he demonstrated that they originated in or after 2005, they would have been irrelevant to the inquiry. Instead, however, he chose to obfuscate about their origin. In those circumstances it was reasonable for Moylan J to infer that a truthful explanation of their origin would have been probative of the existence of undisclosed assets on 30 April 2004 and that the husband's withholding of it should be no less probative. Conclusion [42] I conclude that, even if he had referred only to the evidence admissible before him, Moylan J would still properly have found the Husband to have been guilty of material non-disclosure in 2004; that his order dated 25 September 2012 should therefore be reinstated; and that the wife's claim for further capital provision should therefore proceed before him. It is unclear whether her claim will succeed and, if so, to what extent. Moylan J will need to decide, no doubt with the assistance of the CPS, how best to synchronise his conduct of her application with the confiscation proceedings pending against the husband in the Crown Court; and he will need to investigate not only the extent of the husband's current assets but the extent to which they represent the proceeds of his crimes. For, although the court has jurisdiction to order a transfer to the wife of property so tainted, it will ordinarily, as a matter of public policy, decline to exercise its jurisdiction to do so (CPS v Richards

[2006] EWCA Civ 849

[2006] 2 FLR 1220

, para 26) and in the present case the wife has made clear that she will not ask it to do so. In its submissions to Moylan J the CPS informed him of its allegation in the confiscation proceedings, disputed by the husband, that he had realisable assets of almost £35m. With respect the Court of Appeal was wrong to say that, to the extent that they existed, the husband's realisable assets would necessarily represent the proceeds of crime; but some or indeed all of them may well do so and Moylan J faces an unenviable task in keeping the scale of his inquiry within tight bounds.

[22]The Wife’s application for all forms of ancillary relief was to be restored for re-hearing. Mostyn J became the allocated judge and he adjourned that determination until the Confiscation Order proceedings had concluded.

The Confiscation Judgment

[23]HHJ Tomlinson heard the Confiscation proceedings at Southwark Crown Court over a very protracted period of time. The defendant was the Husband and Interested Parties within the meaning of s.10A Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were: i) Imani Securities Limited ii) Edward Shamutete iii) Urbano Mutati iv) Castlegrove Inc v) Rekha Yadav

[24]On 3 October 2022 HHJ Tomlinson notified this court of his conclusions that: i) I would be finding that having been convicted on two indictments containing a series of money laundering counts contrary to sections 327 and 328 of POCA, BG would be subject to the assumptions prescribed by statute, and ii) Having regard to the issues on which the Family Court would likely be focused as between BG and Varsha Gohil, I was satisfied, regardless of what may be shown by way of title, that BG has a beneficial interest in the following available assets listed by the prosecution and that those assets represent the proceeds of BG’s criminal conduct. a) Real Property: Raj Classic and 88 Sydney Street b) Other Assets i) Rental income from 88 Sydney Street held by Foxtons’. ii) A Schroders bank account in the name of Sunfor Commercial. iii) A State of Mauritius bank account also in the name of Sunfor Commercial. iv) A Schroders bank account in the name of Slavonian Finance Corp. v) A Hinduja bank account in the name of Bilt Finance Ltd.

[25]On 28 October 2022 he delivered a written judgment. It was supplemented by a further judgment given in July 2023 and the Confiscation Order was made on 24 July 2023. The status of that judgment has been the matter of some debate – legally and evidentially – which I shall consider later but the conclusions reached after such a protracted process are clearly of significance and they bite differently as far as different parties are concerned.

[26]At the same time, HHJ Tomlinson also released his findings in the related case involving James Ibori and Udoamaka Onuigbo. The sums involved in their criminality are eye-watering. In an attempt to bribe the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, they delivered $15m in cash to its head. The confiscation proceedings took an inordinately long time for a host of reasons set out in HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment including that in 2016 the Husband (and others) sought to appeal their convictions out of time and it took the Court of Appeal until February 2018 to determine those applications.

[27]HHJ Tomlinson was immersed in the case over several years. He read, heard and considered evidence from a range of sources including from the Husband (although he did not give oral evidence), from an accredited financial investigator and from an accredited forensic accountant. The judgment and addendum are rich in detail, discussion and conclusion. What follows are only selected extracts which bear upon matters which are in issue in the application before me. [my added emphasis] i) In relation to an indictment that the Husband had faced but which had not been brought to trial

the judge commented:

“While they [the CPS] would have little difficulty proving that BG had created false ‘backdated’ material” ii) At [85], he recorded that documents suggestive of due diligence had been prepared by Arlingtons Sharmas with the drafting of letters declaring a legitimate source for the funds from Ken Oil iii) There is of course a significant body of evidence that is capable of proving that BG is a serial “back-dater” of documentation [190] iv) I find that BG must be taken to have had an understanding of the whole picture…… Elsewhere I refer to my view that BG acted for clients elsewhere in Africa before he started to act forJI, [110] v) The prosecution asserted that the investigation traced further monies amounting to a quarter of the cost of the C604 to MER whereafter they went to Stanhope and then to a Swiss account (Schroder Bank) in the name of Parabola International Corp; sometimes referred to hereafter simply as “Parabola”, this entity features significantly in the narrative. On 30th August 2005 Parabola sent $4,788,476.92 to Barc. 4855. A reference from Parabola’s Swiss account with Schroders read “Facilitate the completion of the purchase of the aircraft”

. Starting with MER the route went > Stanhope > Parabola > Barc. 4855. On 19th December 2005 and 2nd June 2006 Arlingtons made payments of $2.5m and $2m to Bombardier. vi) [118] Essentially, the prosecution submitted that the participants to the agreement focused on an “intermediary company” bearing a permutation of the ADF hallmark which claimed a commission for work that it had no cause to undertake, thus rendering the diverted sum of $37 million the proceeds of crime. The prosecution continued to assert that in order to legitimise the usefulness of ADF, BG was instrumental in the creation of false paperwork. Thereafter the proceeds of the fraud were disbursed from ADF through a series of other companies to further conceal its origin. vii) [121] As against BG the prosecution stated that he inspired the creation of an ADF corporate vehicle which DMCA set up in the Marshall Islands; he was shown along with BG as a director from 3rd October 2005….. BG was involved in the drafting of correspondence for Hythe Securities to reproduce and send to Arlingtons…. The prosecution’s case is that at BG’s behest the management service entity, Copex, established Brookes Aviation as a company in which any share was recorded as being held by or for the benefit of NGMG. viii) [132] Though representing all the transactions to have been entirely above board, BG stated that it wasn’t correct that any of these investments or loans were undertaken under his directions. AD Finance Ltd was an investment fund controlled and operated by LDB and DMCA. Arlingtons as “solicitors to the fund” maintained routine professional interaction. ix) [143] The transfers were supposedly justified by a loan agreement dated 22nd June 2006. Applying it, ADF transferred $11.4m, to be repaid over 7 years in annual instalments at 6%. The Crown’s case is that the loan document plainly wasn’t contemporaneous, BG having on 15th December 2006 emailed Arlingtons’ employees to draft it….. Later email exchanges in July 2007 between BG and an Arlingtons’ employee are said to have been inadvertently copied to an employee at Copex; this data suggested that Arlingtons actually created the agreement on 26th July 2007, more than a year after it was supposedly signed and dated. x) [144] In October 2007, a transfer of $11,417,684.07 was affected from the Brookes account in Mauritius to this Liechtenstein account. Thereafter a sum which according to the prosecution is equivalent to £5,745,665-89 was transferred to an account with HSBC held with Zetland Fiduciary (“Zetland”) in June 2008, by which time BG was identified as Zetland’s beneficial owner. xi) [157] Turning back to BG and his unsworn assertions, they literally amount to a defence not only of himself, but of the transactions identified in the substantive counts on the Augen indictment. In relation to all counts on which he was convicted, BG’s stance has been to effectively explain and justify what happened. I agree with the Crown’s position that were I to adopt those submissions advanced by BG, I would effectively be declaring him to be N-G of the offences on which he was convicted and in contradiction of the basis on which I must proceed that he is indeed guilty. With the exception of his case that monies that went to Arlingtons’ various accounts did not constitute any Allpress category benefit to him, he has effectively asserted that he played no meaningful part in significant events and that in any event there was no criminality. I cannot accept either contention. Each in fact is impractical and hopeless. xii) As to the first of the three essential questions that a judge must ask in confiscation proceedings it cannot be seriously disputed that the lifestyle provisions engage. BG has plainly benefited from PCC (proceeds of criminal conduct), the gains in respect of which, come under the umbrella of GCC (general criminal conduct). An appropriate GCC assumption as to relative property or particular expenditure shall be made unless it is shown either to be incorrect and / or that a serious risk of injustice may arise were the assumption to be made. Though such safeguards may philologically not be mutually dependent it is difficult to envisage circumstances where an assumption once shown to be incorrect would not also lead to a serious risk of injustice. xiii) In addressing these questions, the Court must first establish the facts as best it can on the material available, relying as appropriate on the statutory assumptions. In very many cases the factual findings will be decisive. The exercise of the jurisdiction involves no departure from familiar rules governing entitlement and ownership. While the answering of the third question calls for inquiry into the financial resources of D at the date of the determination, the answering of the first two questions plainly calls for a historical inquiry into past transactions. xiv) Confiscation proceedings remain fully adversarial, affording a convicted D every opportunity to challenge evidence brought against him and to call witnesses. In essence and broadly by way of a cross examination of the ‘new’ AFIs relied on by the prosecution and a forensic accounting analysis BG seeks to undermine the evidence brought against him. BG simply hasn’t given evidence on oath or affirmation before me, a stance he notified to the Court on 21st February 2021 having been given considerable time to reflect on it. So, though strictly admissible, any assertion by him in these proceedings that is not authenticated by some sort of contemporary record is additionally susceptible to the comment that it was not given in oral evidence and has not been tested in cross-examination. xv) Time and again however when litigating these proceedings relying on the AFAS’ opinions and in his cross examination of the prosecution’s case, for instance when suggesting that documents should be taken at their face value and treated as authentic, it was plain that BG was in reality asserting that he was innocent on both indictments. xvi) The CPS approach was…Put simply the prosecution again calculated the benefit to BG according to the monies that were paid to one or more of Arlingtons’ bank accounts, including Barc. 4855. xvii) [159] Drawing the threads of all the Tureen and Augen convictions together, if I am satisfied that BG exercised sufficient control over those accounts into which the proceeds of this criminality was paid, I am constrained to find that he benefited in those sums. While it would be inaccurate to classify BG as having had the status at Arlingtons of something analogous to that of a sole practitioner with exclusive control and similar though not necessarily identical to M in Allpress, I reiterate my earlier analysis of BG being the person at Arlingtons with the overview of the criminality in which he intentionally connived over a prolonged period of time. xviii) a finding that BG had a criminal lifestyle is inevitable……. The relevant day therefore commenced six years previously on 25th September 2002. In relation to receipts by BG of unexplained sums of money between 25th September 2002 and 24th September 2008 the statutory assumptions in section 10 of POCA certainly engage as a matter of law.

[28]From paragraph 163 onwards HHJ Tomlinson addressed the issue of transactions which pre-dated the start of criminality, but which were brought into account in the confiscation proceedings by operation of the General Criminal Conduct assumptions in POCA. This is where the Interested Parties become engaged.

[29]The overall benefit beyond the ambits of the indictments was said to be: i) Nat West Account 7989 £27,350.42 ii) Investec Account 306/26PICA £2,000.00 iii) ECSI Castlegrove Account 7303 ($) £1,290,638.42 iv) ECSI Castlegrove Account 7303 (£) £26,495.00 v) Castlegrove Julius Bäer Account 333.01 £2,479,559.59 vi) Castlegrove Julius Bäer Account 402.01 £402,007.35 vii) Banque Pictet & Cie Account K-888156 £499,935.93 viii) Crest High Management Account 8192 £911,105.77 ix) Sunset Merck Finck Account 7639 £228,381.83 x) Imani Securities HSBC Account 5263 £150,709.47 xi) Sennbridge Capital Account 0886 £236,876.54 xii) Wellwick Franck Galland Accounts £113,177.07 xiii) Slavonian Finance Schroders Account £360,135.31 xiv) Bilt Finance Hinduja Bank Account £75,949.56 xv) Wellwick VP Bank Account 1.008 £37,870.44 xvi) 88 Sydney Street £3,250,000.00 xvii) Rental Income from 88 Sydney Street £668,130.00 xviii) Raj Classic £510,841.33 xix) Sunfor Schroders Account 2371 £33,433.00 xx) Parabola Merrill Lynch Account 7426 £1,058,783.38 xxi) Parabola Kaingo Schroders Account 1.080 £158,273.90 The Total Benefit from application of the s.10 POCA assumptions plus CVM uplift was assessed to amount to £17,521,654.31.

[30]In respect of the Interested Parties, HHJ Tomlinson examined the evidence including that submitted by them, although none gave oral evidence and concluded as follows: i) Castlegrove: this became synonymous with Rekha Yadav, H’s sister. Although ordered to disclose information she did not respond and the court was able to draw inferences from this. a) The prosecution identified 5 facts they said indicated H was the beneficial owner i) ECSI documentation recorded that all contact for Castlegrove should go through BG who had an unfettered Power of Attorney over the company and its bank accounts. ii) ECSI maintained a chart of company structures detailing BG as the ‘Final Economic Beneficiary’ of Castlegrove. iii) H himself asserted to ECSI that he was the beneficial owner of Castlegrove. iv) H was “the common thread” in respect of funds that passed through the Castlegrove bank accounts. v) Nothing of Ms. Yadav’s profile with HMRC over the ensuing years supports the contention that she was personally benefitting through her association with this company. b) The Husband submitted Castlegrove had not absorbed any proceeds of crime. c) HHJ Tomlinson found i) over the relevant period, the volume of assets absorbed within Castlegrove was not consistent with any identified and declared income for Ms. Yadav which would have enabled her to inject such level of funds ii) The Husband intended to use Castlegrove as a device to layer the proceeds of crime which included the concealment of his beneficial ownership of unexplained monies. iii) He invariably caused the proceeds of crime to be passed through it. iv) The statutory assumptions engage in relation to specific transfers for which there is no explanation, the Husband had not discharged the burden of proving the assumptions shouldn’t apply. Specific assets covered include £402,007 and Sydney Street. ii) Raj Classic: Two flats in Mumbai. a) Sums from Castlegrove Julius Baer account were used to pay the lawyers who acted on the purchase; $72,120 and some part of $147,140 b) The Husband used the address as his own at times – February 2007 for instance c) He included the flats in his own POCA statement d) The Husband is the beneficial owner of the Raj Classic flats iii) Parabola (ES) – Miramar (UM) a) Both ES and UM are based in Zambia and could have given evidence, but they were not made available. Their written evidence is admissible subject to weight. b) Their case was that it wasn’t open to the court to infer Parabola and Miramar were established to facilitate fraud as there were multiple transactions that predated the start of the statutory assumptions period and that the accredited forensic investigator accepted that the original source of significant monies that went on to pass through the accounts was not discernible. c) Both EDSH and URMU have asserted that by the late 90s, they had accumulated their significant wealth through investing in precious gems, albeit with different and seemingly unrelated business partners. In each case the business partner seems to have held the relative investment on trust and paid it over at much the same time to facilitate the start of the audit trail, in the main from July 1999 onwards. Each interested party said that having met BG at much the same sort of time in the early to mid-90s, he went on to create the principal corporate vehicles of Parabola (EDSH) and Miramar (URMU) for the benefit of the relative individual each of whom has stated that he was the true beneficial owner citing contemporary paperwork in support of that statement. d) Their case is that H undertook unauthorised transactions and introduced dirty money into the Parabola and Miramar accounts and so the proceeds of his fraud were introduced and to some extent mixed in with supposedly clean money that the husband was supposed to be applying for their benefit. It is agreed ES/UM were not involved in the criminality the subject of the indictments. Their case is that the transfers up to 11 November 2005 were authorised and were their funds. H argued although the accounts with Pictet were opened in his name this was just due to the absence of some documentation. From October 2006 although he had a Power of Attorney when he transferred funds from Pictet he was acting without authority. e) ES and UM submitted that H’s interest in accounts linked to them (Parabola at Merrill Lynch, Schroder, Castlegrove at Julius Baer, Zetland at HSBC, Wellwick at VP Bank, Sloan Capital at Pictet, Baker Finance at Standard Chartered, Earls Court at ABN, Del Sol at Liechtenstein, Serapis at LKGT and Willard at Julius Baer) should be limited although save for Castlegrove and Willard it was accepted proceeds of fraud had been sent. f) HHJ Tomlinson rejected ES’s account of how he came by the funds to make the initial investments which would have funded Parabola by reference to inconsistencies between various statements. [202] He also rejected UM’s account of how he said he generated the sums which are alleged to have formed the initial investments in Miramar. He concluded that they were nominees. g) General Criminal Conduct Benefit (assumption based) i) Castlegrove 7303: £1,290,638 ii) Castlegrove 73030: £29,495 iii) Castlegrove Julius Baer 333.01: £2,479 iv) Castlegrove Julius Baer 402.01 £402,007 v) 88 Sydney Street(a) Value: £3,250,000

(b) Income: £668,130 iv) Lifestyle Assumption Benefit a) Banque Pictet & Cie – K888156: £3,4999,935 b) Imani Securities HSBC 5263: £1,150,709 This may subsequently have been conceded by CPS. The evidence set out in HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment was more suggestive of a genuine interested party history. c) Parabola Kaingo Schroders 1.080: £158,273.90 d) Parabola Merrill Lynch 7426: £1,058,783 v) Slavonian Finance Corp: Schroders account. a) The Husband maintains this replaced Odessa Management account which was closed in 2007 and it recorded he and the Third Respondent as the beneficial owners. Both the Family Court and HHJ Tomlinson accepted that the funds which were in this account could not have come from Odessa or the Husband’s Arlingtons Sharmas drawings given the findings of Moylan J in the set aside. Drawings were used to pay school fees and a credit card for the Third Respondent. vi) Other accounts a) Sennbridge Capital: Banque Franck Galland & Cie. The Husband was recorded as the source of funds and the owner. This recorded the opening funds were savings from his law practice. £236,876 was his benefit. b) Wellwick Capital SA: Accounts 0882 and 0883 Banque Franck Galland. This is an account opened on 22 February 2007. He was identified as the beneficiary. The Husband accepted beneficial ownership of the Wellwick capital entity [#216]. It represented benefit from GCC. c) Wellwick Capital SA VP Bank 1.008: Opened on 3 July 2008 with the Husband as beneficial owner. In 2014 he accepted beneficial ownership. The source of funds was Zetland. It represented benefit from GCC. In respect of these 3 accounts although these figures were identified as the Husband’s benefit this was as a result of the operation of the GCC assumption and there was evidence of a genuine investment in the background. vii) Crest High Holdings: SG Bank account 8888192. Incorporated on 24 November 2005 with the Husband as beneficial owner. $5,579,000 was transferred to Bilt Finance, Hinduja Bank account and then $18,055 to the lawyer acting on the Raj Classic purchase. The Husband accepted in 2014 he was the beneficial owner of this and asserted it came from a legitimate enterprise. The benefit was assessed at £1,911,105.77. This was a product of the General Criminal Conduct assumptions. HHJ Tomlinson cross-referred to similarities with the transactions which were the dissemination of funds acquired from James Ibori’s offending. viii) Bilt Finance: The Husband accepted he was the beneficial owner although documents showed one Ajay Hinduja as the beneficial owner, but the monies came from Crest (above) and the Husband was therefore the true beneficial owner. Monies were withdrawn for Nitu Gulab. This was also found to represent benefit from GCC.

[31]It emerges from the judgment that the benefit of criminal conduct is assessed in many instances by reference to the sums that passed through the Arlingtons’ accounts. By virtue of how the POCA scheme works, a criminal may be attributed with benefit when it is acknowledged that it has not ‘stuck’ in his hands or ever did. A money launderer who passes £1m through his account may be attributed a benefit of £1m even though it is acknowledged the £1m was passed on - even to another person. Thus, for my purposes a conclusion that the Husband received a benefit of £xm does not necessarily mean that that sum remained in his hands. Furthermore, where the POCA assumptions apply, this leads to sums being determined to be benefit of GCC on the basis that the defendant has not disproved that they are the proceeds of crime. It is therefore perfectly possible for the Crown Court by the application of assumptions to determine that the value of an asset represents benefit from general criminal conduct but for this court to determine on evidence that on balance of probability it was the product of legitimate business either at that time or earlier. That has implications for the determination of whether assets are tainted and thus available for distribution. Furthermore, if a criminal is attributed with a benefit of £1m and has realisable assets of £1m the confiscation order will apply to that £1m even if the evidence supports a conclusion that of the £1m the criminal only retained £100k and that the £900,000 is untainted. Thus, the POCA scheme contains within it both the possibility that assumptions could be displaced by findings on evidence and a recognition that ‘innocent’ funds may be included within the available amount.

[32]In his later judgment in July 2023, HHJ Tomlinson [1-840] dealt with some issues that had been left unaddressed. i) He confirmed that all the assets he had found as benefit he considered to be the Husband’s in their entirety absent any obvious third party proprietary interest. a) He rejected the claimed interests of Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati Urbano[1-846] b) He made the same finding in relation to Mr Shamutete and Imani, but accepted Mr Patel was entitled to some remuneration in relation to Imani. c) Castlegrove (Julius Baer 333.01) was an asset of the Husband’s and neither Castlegrove or Rekha Yadav had any proprietary interest in it. d) Wellwick Capital – no other person has a proprietary interest. e) Slavonian Finance is the Husband’s and linked Odessa – the Third Respondent has no proprietary interest. ii) He found that: a) A further flat in East Mumbai (Sheraton Plaza) was the Husband’s b) Highlander was not a realisable asset c) A Lloyds account and a cherished number plate were realisable assets. iii) The total Benefit was £42,424,037.01 iv) Available assets had been identified at £28,016,674.65. The Confiscation Order itself identified the sum payable as £28,191,787.15 which was subsequently varied to £27,967,337.45.

The Chancery Judgment: Gohil-v-Gohil [2024] EWHC 213 (Ch)

[33]A further strand of the litigation that has engulfed the family came to a conclusion before Deputy Master Lampert. That case – brought by the Wife to uphold the Will of the 2nd Respondent by which he had left his estate to the sons of the Wife and Husband and to the Wife. This was contested by the Third Respondent who challenged the validity of the Will on the basis of undue influence, fraud and calumny. DM Lampert’s judgment includes the following. These witness statements include extensive legal submissions and opinions and I have gained the clear impression that they contain material that goes well beyond the Defendant's personal knowledge and understanding. The Defendant is said to have a limited understanding of English so as to be unable to speak for herself at hearings, but her statements include detailed accounts of the previous hearings in these proceedings and in the Family Division and FTT. The Defendant's witness statements are at odds with the oral evidence she gave in proceedings that the Claimant brought in the FTT to reinstate a Form A restriction against the title to Highlander which had been wrongly cancelled on the application of the Defendant. If the Defendant was unable to understand "any documents" and would give "legal" letters to her children, it is difficult to see how the content of her witness statements could possibly be her own evidence dealing, as they do, extensively with the complex history of the matrimonial proceedings between the Claimant and Bhadresh, the FTT proceedings and the previous hearings before this Court. I also note that the Defendant's evidence seeks to portray the Claimant as an obsessive and vexatious litigant seeking revenge against the Gohil family. This is at odds with various Court decisions which vindicate the Claimant, including the Supreme Court and FTT decisions to which I have referred above. As regards the Claimant, it appears from the contemporaneous evidence referred to above that she had a positive relationship with the Deceased in 2007 when he gave evidence on her behalf which incriminated his own son in the matrimonial proceedings. That relationship seems to have been maintained up to the Deceased death in on 23 January 2018. I have seen a series of emails between the Claimant and doctors involved in providing medical care to the Deceased which speak to the affection that the Claimant had for the Deceased. This includes seeking to "give him the best chance of recovery"[sic] and making arrangements for the Deceased to stay at a yoga retreat which she thought would lift his spirits. It is therefore tragic that within a few days of the Deceased's death, his daughter Sima Sud, saw fit to make a criminal complaint against the Claimant accusing her of trespass and theft when, on the face of the Will, she is an executor and beneficiary of the Deceased's estate. The Defendant asserts that the Deceased had become isolated from his family and that the Claimant took advantage of him and induced a state of confusion, deep anxiety, depression, fuelled his anger, caused him to be unable to think and do things for himself, in consequence of which he was highly vulnerable and easy to manipulate. However, there is no evidence before me to support such an assertion and the Defendant does not particularise any matter which may rebut the presumption. This is unsurprising since it is clear from the evidence that the Deceased had been estranged from the Defendant and had cut off all contact with his family from around 2001. In circumstances where the Defendant and her family were not in contact with the Deceased for many years both before and after the making of the Will, I find the Defendant's case on capacity to be mere speculation. This is insufficient to rebut the presumption of capacity. In my judgment, the Defendant's case on capacity is therefore mere speculation on her part and the Defendant has failed to raise any real doubt as to capacity in order to rebut the presumption. Whilst the Claimant's evidence on capacity in the form of the CGW statement is far from perfect, it provides some evidence on capacity, with further weight being added by the Deceased's statement in March 2009 to DC Irons. Accordingly, I consider that the Defendant's case on capacity has no realistic prospect of success. The Defence avers that the Will was not the product of the Deceased's own volition but was procured by the undue influence, fraud and calumny of the Claimant and Mr Yadav…. The Defendant has failed to particularise any form of pressure or persuasion being exerted over the Deceased. Far from there being no explanation other than undue influence, in my judgment there is ample evidence on which to conclude that the Deceased acted entirely rationally when he made the Will having regard to his then relationship with the Claimant and his lack of relationship with the Defendant and their family. With regard to fraudulent calumny, the evidence before me shows that the Deceased had set his mind against the Defendant and his children in 2001 when he left them and moved to India. There is no evidence that this had anything to do with the Claimant who remained married to Bhadresh and lived with him and the Defendant at Highlander at the time. As time passed, the Claimant had no need to cast dishonest aspersions on Bhadresh's character since his character is seriously compromised by both his criminal conviction and the finding of fraudulent non-disclosure in the matrimonial proceedings. In my judgment, the evidence suggests that the Deceased was seriously troubled by the Defendant's unwavering support for Bhadresh such that she was tainted by his wrongdoing in the eyes of the Deceased.

Preliminary Issues

[34]A number of issues relating to the documentary evidence had to be addressed at the outset of the case. The Husband had emailed my clerk in advance of the hearing in relation to the Bundles and had apparently referred to documents being included which he said should not have been. My clerk informed him that if he wanted to raise such issues that an application would need to be made. No application was made and during the course of the week set aside for reading a number of Bundles were submitted by the Wife and the Husband.

[35]It emerged on the first day of the hearing that issues remained in relation to the documents. i) MLA material. Since I gave my judgment on the use of MLA material, the CPS had sought the consent of various authorities to use the evidence they provided pursuant to MLA requests in the financial remedy proceedings. Consent had been received from the USA, Guernsey, Austria, Mauritius and the Isle of Man. However, it appeared that there was other documentation in the Bundles in respect of which consent had not been given and this was identified in a Schedule prepared by the CPS. Some was also referred to and incorporated within (or accepted) the judgment of HHJ Tomlinson. I directed that: a) Reliance should not be placed by the parties and advocates upon MLA material save where it was subject to consent and that the CPS’s schedule would guide that process. b) Reliance could be placed (by me and others) on the findings of HHJ Tomlinson and insofar as that incorporated MLA evidence which was not subject to consent it appeared it could be relied upon as it was now part of a public document recording facts found. I invited the parties to make clear if they disagreed with that approach in which case a more in-depth evaluation of the case-law relating to MLA’s and the status of judgments might have to be undertaken. No party invited me to undertake that process. ii) The Husband argued that the Wife had introduced a significant volume of documentation into her bundles after my direction in October (repeated in January) that she makes clear what documentation she relied on. The CPS supported the argument that indeed additional material had been produced. The Husband said it was unfair as he had answered her case in his statement and 4,000-page exhibit. I permitted the additional documents to remain for reasons I gave at the time but essentially: a) They were incorporated into the Bundles provided to me and which had been read (in part) by me and it would not be possible to remove or ignore that material within the trial timeframe. b) It appeared that the material was familiar to Mr Gohil and he would be able to address it including by adducing any further relevant documents. c) The Wife should have been given an opportunity to reply to his statement as he had control of (many if not most of) the relevant information and documents which she did not. d) An application should have been made prior to the commencement of reading or earlier than Day 6. iii) The Husband also asserted that material which had been improperly obtained had been included – Hildebrand or Imerman material. Both shorthands are applicable as some material was obtained in 2002 and so was subject to the framework including orders which were then governed by the Hildebrand case

[1992] 1 FLR 244

(which in effect allowed a party to produce and rely on them) and others were obtained in 2016 from Devan and so prima facie (subject to any right Devan had to disclose material) they were governed by the far more restrictive framework which emerged from Imerman-v-Tchenguiz

[2010] EWCA Civ 908

which effectively requires the obtaining party to return them, the represented receiving party to disclose relevant ones and in the event that the receiving party is a Litigant in Person allows for review by an independent lawyer. I directed the Husband to produce a list of the documents he said were wrongly included in the Bundle, asked the advocates to identify the orders which had been made in relation to them, directed Devan to file a statement addressing his entitlement to produce the ‘Finska’ documents and adjourned the determination to Day 8. By that morning something of a consensus had emerged as to the use of the documents. The Hildebrand documents had been subject to a process in the original proceedings and had been admitted as evidence and both the Wife and Husband relied on them. In relation to subsequent documents produced by Devan in his statement he set out how he had been asked to create an email account for the Husband and had been asked to manage communications and so the documents he produced were as much his documents as the Husband’s and so although the Husband (it later emerged) did not accept the truth of them he did not object to their admission as evidence and did not seek to ask questions of Devan.

[36]Having urged me to proceed to a final hearing and not to await the CPS recovery process and having said he thought his cross-examination of the Wife might take several days and acknowledging he would be cross-examined by the Wife and CPS including saying (1-645): I have no reason to delay the final hearing. It provides the court with an opportunity to thoroughly examine the evidence and put an end to Varsha's ‘relentless and indefatigable’ campaign. The facts, tell a very different story - one that, when viewed objectively, will reveal two key points: first, that Varsha's relentless pursuit of these claims stems from a deep-seated vendetta; and second, a case of ‘the emperor has no clothes.’ It came as something of a surprise to receive a submission during the reading week that the Husband objected to the CPS asking him any questions on the basis that they should not properly be part of the financial remedy case as they had their own interests (including financial) to serve and that they were seeking to secure material to use in their response to his appeal against the Confiscation Order and that allowing them to question him might prejudice his appeal. I refused that application and gave my reasons for doing so; in essence concluding that the CPS were properly a party because the ‘public’ had an interest in the confiscation order and because in protecting that interest they were entitled to test his evidence as to the provenance of the funds which created his realisable assets and his evidence as to third party interests.

[37]In the course of the hearing, further documentation was produced by each of the parties including Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati. The Wife had produced additional documents in the Bundles which were clearly additional to those which had been produced in her statement in support of her case. Given I had not provided (by oversight at the October directions I think) for her to reply to the Husband’s evidence as to marital assets and third party interests, I permitted her to (in effect) reply to the Husband’s evidence and consequently permitted him to produce further documents he considered relevant in the light of the Wife’s additional documents. That resulted in Bundle BG3. Following cross-examination on behalf of Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati the Husband produced BG4 which he submitted was relevant to whether Mr Shamutete had been involved in a particular commercial transaction which they denied knowledge of. I did not permit him to adduce this.

[38]The CPS produced further documentary evidence which had become disclosable as a result of consents being given by Mauritius and the Isle of Man to use MLA material. They also produced some property particulars which related to the Wife’s housing need. MLA consent had not been secured from Singapore, Hong Kong or Switzerland. It emerged that consent requests had not been made to the Swiss authorities and so the documentary evidence relating to the accounts held in Switzerland (the Enzo International Schroders account, Parabola Schroders account, the Willard Investments Julius Baer account, the Castlegrove Julius Baer account, and the Wellwick Capital account at VP Bank) and Parabola/Miramar/Westlake/Sloan Capital accounts at Pictet and Cie (Singapore) and the Zetland Group account at HSBC Hong Kong were only poorly evidenced.

[39]Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati produced further bank statements they had obtained in the proceedings in Singapore to show how funds had been applied from the Pictet and Cie accounts there. No party applied for a ‘general’ order that they disclose all the material they had obtained and so what was produced was curated by them.

The Evidence

[40]The evidence is contained within the electronic Bundles. In old currency it would have amounted to 30 or so Lever Arch files. My summary of the evidence and the witnesses in this judgment can only scratch the surface of that huge volume of material and I have aimed to record that which I consider essential to each parties’ case and which forms the foundations of my judgment. Much of their cases are recorded in this judgment either in narrative form or by reference to documents they considered essential to explaining their position and their evidence in the detailed Chronology which is appended to this judgment. That Chronology forms an integral part of this judgment and should be read together with it. To incorporate all of that material and the analysis of it which feeds into the evaluation in this judgment would both have made this judgment inordinately long (assuming it isn’t already) but also would have required many further days of writing which I do not consider to be a proportionate use of time; particularly in a case which has already had far more than what might be said to be its ‘fair’ share having regard to the issues and sums involved.

[41]I only heard from 3 witnesses: the Wife, Mr Wren of the NCA and the Husband. Devan Gohil the parties’ son filed a statement dealing with how possible ‘Imerman’ documents came into his possession, but the Husband did not wish to question him, although in his own oral evidence he asserted that Devan was not telling the truth. There are many others who could have given evidence but were not called. Over the years, forensic accountants were instructed in both the financial remedy and the confiscation proceedings but no party sought permission to call expert evidence in this case although the Husband referred to and placed significant weight on the report of Julia Walker and referred to the evidence of the forensic accountants he had instructed in the Confiscation proceedings. The following could have given evidence but did not – consistent with the position adopted in the confiscation proceedings. i) Kamla Gohil, the Third Respondent. ii) Mr Shamutete iii) Mr Mutati iv) Rekha Yadav – although she had not pursued an application to participate v) Mr Juggapah or any director or beneficial owner of Castlegrove or Sunfor There were other significant individuals referred to in statements or documents such as Mr Chaturvedi of Merrill Lynch, and Mr Sodhi. The second respondent, the Husband’s father, died on 23 January 2018. He had given oral evidence before Moylan J in 2012 – he at no time retracted his evidence before his death.

The Wife

[42]The Wife’s evidence is contained within the following documents. i) 1-310 – LSPO statement 2023 ii) 1-334 – Application for disclosure and enforcement 2023 iii) 1-343 – application for MPS 2019 iv) 1-563 MPS 15 Nov 2023 v) 1-610 – July 2024 – s.25 narrative vi) 1A- 93 – 5th Form E vii) 1A – 238 – Response to Third party statements viii) 1B- 11 Assets sought ix) 1B-355 – Statement and Schedule of Evidence 3 March 2025 x) 1B – 592 – 1st Form E 2002 (standard of living) xi) 1B-614 Form E 2007 xii) 1B-641 Form E 2013 xiii) 1B-676 – Form E June 2016 xiv) 1B-1556 – Statement of March 2025 (use of £270k) xv) 2- 7 Statement of 12 September 2020 xvi) 2-197 – Statement to join Rekha Yadav

[43]The Wife has also prepared a number of Chronologies, Flow Charts or Tables from material which she has received, and she relied on those in particular. i) 1-887 Chronology Sunfor ii) 3-6 – Merrill Lynch Brief analysis

[44]Mrs Gohil gave evidence over the course of 2 days. She was calm and measured throughout which, given she was cross-examined by the Husband for most of that time, was a testament to her resilience. No request for special measures had been made although the issue of domestic abuse had been raised and I did not consider it necessary to implement any of my own motion. Her account goes back over 30 or more years and so the possibility of memory creep or failure is a very real one. The experiences of 23 years since separation must have shaped both her memories but also her personality as they make up over 1/3 of her adult life. I have little doubt that giving evidence must have been a stressful experience – her future financial security is dependent on the outcome and her pursuit of justice has inevitably had an impact on how she perceives evidence. She has clearly spent huge amounts of time digesting, sorting and analysing the evidence that has been obtained and her Flow Charts and other analytical documents display the extent of her efforts. Her grasp of the documents was deep – although not as deep as the Husband’s – and I sensed that she had wearied of the process and did not have the energy to continue with the same intensity that she clearly once had. She acknowledged that she had not read BG1 – she had by the sounds of it flicked through it. The Husband was critical of her for this – I am not. A further near 4,000 pages of material from the Husband who she believes with good reason to be highly capable of obfuscation would present (and did present) a challenge even to highly experienced lawyers – for a woman worn down by 23 years of pursuit of her financial remedy claim it could present an intolerable burden.

[45]Her evidence about the impact of events of the last 23 years on her and the children was compelling. Clearly the tide of strain and pressure has ebbed and flowed over those years. It seemed clear that the events around the Consent Order of May 2004 had been particularly stressful as she had believed she had available the Husband’s fathers affidavit supporting her position that the Husband was failing to disclose significant wealth but this potential game-changer evaporated shortly before the FDR and with the forensic accountant’s report being more nuanced than she had perhaps expected her oral evidence to me suggested that she felt defeated and could not face the prospect of further litigation and so settled notwithstanding she believed – rightly as it turned out – that the Husband had successfully obscured his finances. At this time the children were 12, 10 and 7, she was living with her parents and fighting heavily contested litigation. It is not surprising that she should have reached the end of her resources at this time. She said: We have had these years taken away from us – I have lived with this and managing the children and the effects on the children and I have spent my life shielding the children and surviving ….I alone have shouldered their emotions.. the respondent hasn’t seen any of the sufferings. The toughest part of my journey has been being on my own and it is tough watching the children suffer. And there are memories of really dark moments which we can’t erase and HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment – it was a relief but also so painful that he had put us through all of this. I haven’t had a relationship – I thought it really important for them [the children] to have a parent to rely on and I have no regrets about that … I accept the Wife’s evidence about the pervasive impact that the situation has had on her and the children emotionally but also on her ability to qualify and to earn a living in her own right. Although there have no doubt been periods of time when litigation has not been ongoing and when a return to normal life may have seemed in reach these were against a backdrop of ongoing suspicion that the Husband had access to other resources; his lavish 40th birthday party in late 2004, his generous spending on holidays in 2005, his offers to obtain substantial mortgages or funds to assist in the purchase of a property for the Wife and children. Litigation resumed in 2006 when Baron J refused the Wife’s application for leave to appeal out of time and to vary the terms of the consent order in respect of the payment of the £170,000 lump sum. In early 2007, events moved on again; the Husband was served with a production order in relation to the criminal investigation and the Husband’s father signed his affidavit confirming what he had originally said in 2004 which he was now prepared to put his name to and this led to the initial set aside application on 3 July 2007 which then itself was overtaken by the Husband’s arrest in 2008. Since then, the criminal proceedings with all their attendant publicity including that sought by the Husband through his allegations of corruption in the police which were published in the national press, the set aside, the appeals, the trials, the Confiscation Order proceedings enduring from the Husband’s conviction in 2011 have clearly occupied the Wife’s time when she was not caring for the children. Shivani was 18 in 2015 – just before the Supreme Court hearing and after the Supreme Court restored Moylan J’s set aside of the Consent Order the pathway to this hearing has occupied the Wife. For much of that time, she has been a litigant in person, she has been an observer, albeit a dedicated observer of the confiscation order proceedings as she was not technically an interested party and so had no formal status. I accept her evidence that being a single mum and pursuing the litigation has taken all her energy and that although she obtained her qualifications as a solicitor, she has never been able to practice and the reality is at her age now she never will. In giving her oral evidence she did not display the anger or bitterness that one might have expected (and which emerges in her Form E 1B-609 when she relates the Husband’s expenditure on his ‘mistress’) and I wondered whether the passage of time has enabled her to somehow come to accept the situation and to put aside more negative feelings. She was not in any way overtly hostile or angry with the Husband in her evidence but rather was in the main firm and reasoned in her answers to him with only occasional displays of frustration, sarcasm, bitterness or the odd dig for instance when her account of expenditure was being shown to be somewhat exaggerated, she said he used to bully her about their expenditure.

[46]The Husband’s cross-examination of the Wife was well prepared and undertaken with precision. There was little to be learned of the parties or the dynamic between them but given they have been separated for 23 years that is hardly a surprise. The topics that the Husband cross-examined on were trailed in his statements. There were significant sections which focused on the Wife’s analysis of his documents although when I pointed out to him that this was more a matter for submissions than cross-examination, he was able to set that topic down. A significant part of the evidence that the Husband sought to elicit related to demonstrating that the standard of living the family had enjoyed was not as luxurious as the Wife portrayed it; that she had not contributed financially or by care of the family in the way she claimed; that the Husband had been generous in the settlement of 2004; that it was the Wife’s unreasonableness in refusing his offers of help to purchase housing post 2004 that had led to her being in rented accommodation for so long; that the children had not been affected as she maintained; that she had not taken appropriate steps to secure a career and an income following the separation; that she was overstating her needs to a very substantial degree now and that she had other financial resources available to her. In almost all of these endeavours the Wife robustly refuted the Husband’s case and did so with a credible alternative account. One example suffices; the Husband had proposed that the Wife and children move into a house which backed onto the former matrimonial home which understandably she refused having both relocated to NorthWest London and not wanting to be in her Husband’s family’s orbit. I refer below to those aspects of her evidence which were less credible in particular relating to the standard of living that the family lived and to her quantification of what that would translate to now but apart from that and applying a modest discount to reflect how the Wife’s views have been shaped by events and the passage of time; I concluded that the Wife was broadly a reliable witness in her exchanges on these issues.

[47]Large tracts of the Wife’s evidence are her interpretation of the documents relating to the Husband’s activities and I have little doubt that she has a deep understanding of them but ultimately, they are not her documents and she was not involved in any of the transactions covered and so her commentary on them is just that. Some of her recall is based on what she has seen in those documents and in her evidence there was some blurring of what she could recall from before separation with what she has learned in the 23 years since, about company identities in particular. She also had access to the Husband’s lap-top and extracted a significant amount of material from it in April-June 2002 which was returned to the Husband pursuant Hildebrand principles. Her recollection is that material she saw was not subsequently produced pursuant to the Husband’s disclosure obligations which included documents from Lombard Odier showing a significant balance standing to the Husband’s account. Much of the Husband’s cross examination of the Wife was related to her evaluation of the documents. She did not accept the Husband’s contention that the documentation he had provided demonstrated that he had been neither guilty of non-disclosure or dissipation of assets. She said it was an impossible task to get to the bottom of the situation, that there was often a missing link, that she thought she would never get to the bottom of it and that tracing assets would be impossible. She maintained that she believed him to have undisclosed assets and that his lifestyle was inconsistent with him having no other assets. She rejected his contention that his lap-top had given her access to all of his records and if there was anything to see she would have seen it.

[48]She had some recall of the Husband’s business activities prior to their separation and recalled meeting clients, including Zambian clients of the Husbands, having dinner with them and attending Arlingtons’ marketing social events like golf days but she had no direct recollection of Mr Shamutete or Mr Mutati. She was able to recall some of the high net worth clients the Husband or the firm acted for which included film stars, and well known entrepreneurs in the Indian community. He was away on business frequently sometimes two or three times a month and worked six days a week frequently late into the evening at the office.

[49]In the main, I thought the Wife was doing her best to give an accurate account and she sought to answer questions rather than to evade or obscure. However, some aspects of her evidence demonstrated a tendency both to exaggerate but also to interpret documents or other evidence in a way which was consistent only with her approach when there were other possible interpretations. Both are understandable in the context of the struggle she has endured to get to this point and the disappointments and set-backs along the way, but it does mean that one cannot accept all of her evidence as being accurate, reliable and credible. One of the main points in dispute was whether the Husband had said to her shortly after the separation that he was worth £10m. Her account of how this came about was very unclear and in earlier evidence she had said he was worth £5m. I could see that there is a possibility that a Husband in a state of guilt following the discovery of an affair might seek to reassure an angry Wife or to seek forgiveness in this way, but I do not think this occurred in anything like the way she described and that this was a lie at the time, although over the intervening decades, she may have come to believe something like that was said. Apart from anything else, the Husband has so little conscience, I cannot see him making such a declaration even in the crucible of his affair being discovered.

[50]In her first Form E [1B-608] she said: The main matrimonial home comprises; large detached gated property with swimming pool, triple garage and landscaped gardens in a prime area of Kent. The property has been recently refurbished, and heavily extended to the value of between £150-£200,000 paid for by my husband (mainly cash, and some cheques through a NatWest account). [This rather overstates the quality of the accommodation of the matrimonial home but in respect of the costs of the refurbishments and how it was paid for is broadly consistent with other evidence including the Husband’s own letter to his father. in addition, we purchased two holiday properties in Bombay The Wife accepted that they had only ever visited one of the properties in the course of the marriage and so they could not properly be described as holiday properties. During the marriage, we have employed various staff both here and abroad in our other properties. These have included gardeners, cleaners, maids, ironers, etc. The Wife conceded that the reality was somewhat different in that they employed occasional outside help rather than having staff. As a family regular family holidays and when my husband has time, and we have childcare we take weekend breaks in addition as a couple. The Wife’s evidence conceded that over the course of their marriage the family had taken about four foreign holidays which were far more modest than the impression given in her form E]. I have enjoyed wearing the latest creations in jewellery and clothes, to which end international shopping trips to Paris, Dubai, Bombay, and London have been made. The Wife was unable to provide any evidence which was consistent with the picture painted here. The highest by reference to her schedule of jewellery was that on one occasion in Dubai the Husband had spent a few thousand dollars on a small number of items of jewellery. However, the Husband accepted they had been looking at boarding schools, the additional costs of which for the boys would have been inconsistent with his Arlingtons Sharmas drawings, and the Wife’s recollection of looking at an apartment in St George Wharf was not I think just sightseeing. Both would support the Husband having access to much greater wealth than would appear from his Arlingtons Sharmas drawings. I was by this time alienated from my whole family because Bhadresh and his family did not allow me contact with them and created tremendous tension for me if I even attempted to. The evidence suggested that the wife maintained good links with her family and indeed left to stay with her parents when she discovered the Husband’s affair in April 2002. I managed the building works when Highlander was renovated. The documents showed that it was the Husband who was corresponding with the builders and who was managing the payments].

[51]On the other hand, other aspects of her narrative would accord with what the evidence now establishes to be the case: My husband spends much of his time managing his numerous business interests and socialises heavily with prominent business families both here and in India….. He travels abroad on average at least 30 times per year, always using first class or business class. He stays at the best hotels and carries large sums of cash for spending money. The most frequent destinations for his business interests are Lusaka, Zambia; Geneva; Gibraltar; New York; Bombay and Delhi. His business interests in Africa are apparently so big that he has employed his sister to look after his interests out there. The evidence when it emerged from the Confiscation proceedings confirmed all of the above and the Wife was able to give a little detail about the paint factory (Fazmac) and his sister’s involvement which were confirmed by her report. Most of my expenditure is met by my husband either through cash payments or credit card. For the rest I used a Centurion American Express credit card. I understand that this card is granted by invitation only and invitations are forthcoming on the basis of a high pattern of previous expenditure. The Wife’s credit card statements did not support a very high level of expenditure on her credit card at all though it was a card issued to those with a high pattern of business expenditure. The evidence however did suggest that the Husband operated using large amounts of cash where possible. In addition, my husband has had a long-standing rift with his father. I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to heal the rift albeit with little success on the whole. The evidence of the Husband’s father confirmed that his dissatisfaction with the Husband was long-standing and his departure from the family home in 2001 and the subsequent letters from the Husband and third respondent confirm this.

[52]A particular source of contention for the Husband was how his father came to make the affidavit of March 2007 which formed the basis of the set-aside decision. The Wife explained in some detail, and I think broadly accurately, how she had initially gone to India in April 2004 and met with the Husband’s father and with his lawyer and he had agreed to help but had withdrawn shortly before the FDR and that behind the father’s withdrawal had been collusion between the Husband and the father’s lawyer, Mr Siddique.Her evidence was that the Husband’s father had subsequently thought again and that although the affidavit was typed by her it was her father-in-law’s evidence and his documents that he produced. She said that he had come to distrust his former lawyer and believed that the Husband had paid him off.

[53]The Wife’s evidence as to her financial resources and needs is comparatively straightforward. Her most recent Form E demonstrates that: i) Income: a) Nil – benefits ceased on payment of lump sum b) The Wife has diabetes and high blood pressure c) The Wife has a legal qualification but has never undertaken a training contract. ii) Capital a) Property: nil b) Bank accounts: £75,983 (residue of sums paid from enforcement) c) Shares: £1,780 d) Loans/Sums owed (in favour): £141,613 + £30,000 + £130,070 + £301,683 e) Loans/Sums owed: £13,875 + £8889 + £91,900 + 1,371 = £116,036 iii) Housing Need: £3.2-3.5m iv) Income Needs: (per Schedule attached to Form E): £129,870

The Husband

[54]The Husband’s evidence is contained within the following: i) His Form’s E [1B-712, 1B-738, 1B 768, 1A-122] ii) BG2- 315 (Statement of July 2002 re MPS) iii) BG2-379 (statement of 17 October 2002 dealing with Odessa) iv) BG2-577 (Statement of 11 December 2002 dealing with Odessa) v) BG2-633 (Statement of 18 July 2007 re arrears of maintenance) vi) BG2-643 (Statement of July 2007 in relation to application to set aside) vii) B1-624 (narrative statement of August 2024) viii) 1B-31 – statement in reply to the wife’s 13 September 2020 statement (dealing with the marital assets) ix) 1B-57 – His Statement in Reply to Third parties

[55]The Husband has also produced additional bundles of documents BG1, BG2, BG3 and BG4 (not admitted) as well as his replies to questionnaires. He also relied on his Grounds of Appeal against the Confiscation Order [BG1-95] and has produced Opening and Closing documents and schedules. He has represented himself.

[56]His last Form E shows his financial position as follows: i) Income: a) Nil. Struck off solicitor b) Traumatised by relentless proceedings and having therapy ii) Capital a) Property: Nil b) Bank accounts: £71 c) Chattels: £3,000 d) Liabilities: £130,000 + £28m Confiscation order e) Other Assets: £90,174 (50% of Slavonian Finance) f) Pensions: £17,606

[57]The main focus of his evidence was to be on what the matrimonial assets were as at separation, whether any current assets had roots in the marriage and whether any current assets were owned by third parties primarily Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati and Castlegrove/Sunfor. Perhaps inevitably his evidence tended also towards denying some of the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson as to his beneficial ownership of assets, but he also spent some time denying his guilt of the crimes he had been convicted of and even those he had pleaded guilty to. He also denied that the admissions he made in his Section 17 POCA Statement in the Confiscation Proceedings were accurate – although this was less of a surprise as he had previously departed from them during the hearing before HHJ Tomlinson. His explanation for pleading guilty was that he had been told he would receive no more than a 12-month sentence and in respect of his admission of ownership he said (at least for Bilt Finance) that he wanted to make sure his fiancée was released from investigation. His Section 17 statement admitted that he was the beneficial owner of: i) Crest High Management ($3.499m): a fee from a legitimate capital raising/shareholder gains investment facility ii) Sennbridge Capital (£244k): A fee of $400k for a legitimate transaction iii) Slavonian Finance iv) Bilt Finance: Ultimate beneficial owner, funds were from legitimate work (Notore) v) Wellwick Capital: The Husband had sole access, but it was a pooling account for lots of other investors vi) Sunfor Schroders: The Husband was the ultimate beneficial owner vii) Lichtenstein: (£1.574m) The Husband was the beneficial owner. These were also said to be legitimate funds viii) Wellwick Capital (Singapore): (£3.111m) The Husband was the beneficial owner. These were also said to be legitimate funds The inference of these ‘legitimate’ funds could only be they were derived from commercial/advisory activities outside of Arlingtons Sharmas in relation to which, whilst they might post-date the marital period, the Husband did not suggest that his activities had changed significantly after the marriage ended.

[58]The Husband gave evidence over the course of four days. He was in the main calm and polite throughout. He became agitated only on occasions; more so when being challenged by Mr Kinnear on matters which might have had a bearing on the Confiscation Order and his appeal. His grasp of the documentation was remarkable even for a man who has not worked for the last 17 years and has been immersed in the paperwork. He was very organised in his presentation of his documents and adept at marshalling both his facts and arguments. He produced very considerable quantities of documents much of which was unexplored in evidence and some of which raised as many questions as they answered. Why documents referred to transfers of £1m in relation to Prime Shield Trust or a transfer to an unidentified Barings Bank account for unspecified sum or emails for IMM asking where to send $130,521 and £630,000 and who the ultimate beneficiary was to be remain unclear. I acknowledge that given his evidence has to refer back over 30 years and that the critical period of 1995-2008 is now between 30 -17 years ago and thus the possibility of innocent error and memory creep may be present. He had thought through and prepared for most eventualities and so very often had answers for difficult questions. Not all the time though – when he had either not anticipated a question, or a document presented him with an unexpected situation or was in effect unanswerable. His pace of speech, vocabulary, intonation, and his body language presented him as a competent, sincere, knowledgeable, consummate professional. It was easy to imagine would be clients or clients and fellow professionals instinctively feeling he was a man they could trust.

[59]The content of many of his answers made clear his expertise in both complex investments and capital raising and the finer details of offshore structures designed to promote confidentiality or tax efficiency or darker purposes. He is clearly both highly knowledgeable and creative in his ability to devise structures to suit his or his clients’ needs. He also demonstrated considerable knowledge of investment strategies and fund raising. His evidence about Mr Shamutete and his dealings with him over the years supported the conclusion that at some stage this was a substantial and genuine relationship but not simply built on the provision of legal services to him and his company but more particularly built around mutual business ventures and investment and financial management. He is also clearly able to spot an opportunity which his investment activities in relation to the Odessa Management Ltd funds shows but which the 2004 sale of Sydney Street would also seem to illustrate. The totality of the documentation suggests that the 2001 transfer, although hard to understand, did not deprive Mr Almquist of the property. However, when it became necessary to sell the property to release funds to provide for his living expenses, the Husband spotted an opportunity to acquire the property. The documents show that of the eventual sale price of £1.452m that £504,000 was retained by the purchaser in respect of tax liabilities. Thus, Fougeres Trust, or rather Castlegrove [see Deed at BG1-2812] actually acquired a property worth £1.452m for £956,000. It is not clear from the documents whether the tax liabilities were ever settled although the Husband says there was lengthy litigation which ended in 2009 but what the outcome was in terms of any tax paid is not clear. Thus, even if Castlegrove paid the tax they had use of up to £504,000 for some 5 additional years.

[60]His presentation of his arguments (in evidence and in submissions) was wholly subjective, almost entirely incapable of factoring in any contrary fact or point of view and dogmatic to a degree. If there was a ‘lawyers’ point’ to be taken, he would take it. No point was left unmade – however bad it was. He utilises every legal avenue open to him; if you can do it, why should you not is his approach which seems to be irrespective of the merits of doing so. This in one sense illustrates how he is a speculator – if there is a chance of achieving a goal even if the prospects appear almost nil it is worth a whirl. He spent some time attempting to demonstrate that at age 60 and with no training contract completed that I should conclude that the Wife had a substantial earning capacity. He relied on the fact that only 1 paragraph of the Consent Order had been set aside maintaining all else was still valid despite Moylan J having made clear in his judgment that the order remained intact only for technical purposes. Despite the findings of Moylan J and HHJ Tomlinson he was insistent that his disclosure in 2002-2004 was accurate and that there were no undisclosed assets. He was adamant that the Wife had received the lion’s share of the assets and the 2004 order should be upheld in its entirety. Notwithstanding his conviction by a jury and his guilty pleas, he maintains he is innocent, that the transactions were legitimate, that he was the victim of police misconduct and cover up by bankers/corporate trustees, that his lawyers and he were not ready for the second indictment and that he pleaded guilty by duress of circumstance and only to secure a lighter sentence, that his admissions in his Section 17 statement were wrong [1B-163] and that HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions were wrong and would be shown to be so on appeal. His assertion that if assets belonged to him, he would admit it was risible when he went onto to say that even if the Court of Appeal agreed with HHJ Tomlinson he would not accept he was the owner.

[61]He maintained that in fighting the Confiscation Order and in fighting this case that he wanted the facts to be upheld; i.e., that the assets said to be his were third parties. He said he was not being threatened, he understood there was no gain to himself -unless his appeal succeeded - and that he had no financial motivation. Given the level of dishonesty he has been found to have perpetrated and the manipulation of those close to him, the idea that he is doing what he is doing in the interests of others rather than his own self-interest is hard to swallow. However, this is an aspect of his character which permits him to distort the truth to suit his agenda. As with his submissions about the outcome of the set aside being limited to 1 paragraph, so he would distort the findings of HHJ Tomlinson so that he found that all the assets were the proceeds of crime – he only did so by application of the statutory, assumptions – and that the Wife had conceded in the Supreme Court that she would not seek an order in respect of any tainted asset, and she was now acting in breach of that Supreme Court concession.

[62]His approach to almost any question was that a document provided the answer; if it was in black and white then it must be true. Anything which contradicted the written word was suspect and his approach to the determination of the case in general was that he had produced the documentation that proved his case. He challenged counsel “If the document doesn’t support it, don’t say it”. This ran into obvious difficulties when there were documents which were mutually inconsistent (for example Castlegrove documents dated the same day which say he is the beneficial owner on one whilst the other says Rekha Yadav is) with each other and he struggled mentally to accommodate this; even more so the possibility that witness testimony might be permitted to contradict the written word. His attitude to documents was also shown to be manifestly contradictory as he admitted signing bank IRS declarations which on his case were false – but this perhaps was an insight into the conclusion that for the Husband documents are there for – indeed can be created for - whatever purpose you want them to be and this can be to support a truth or to hide a lie. It was further illustrated when the documents recorded him as the beneficial owner of Crest High, but he maintained Mr Okoloko was the true owner and when he accepted that the Land Registry title wrongly identifies Fougeres as the current owner of 88 Sydney Street when he maintained in evidence it passed to Castlegrove formally in 2012/13. Whether this approach to the inviolability of documents is part of his professional make up and underpins his passion for complex documented structures or whether it is an ex post facto position adopted as a defensive strategy is not entirely clear to me. My sense of the Husband is that he revels in the power and opportunity that documentation can deliver to obscure, to manipulate, to further one’s goals. The net effect of his evidence in relation to documents was it was clear he had the means to ensure that documents said whatever he wanted them to show on the record, whatever the real truth was and that the processes in place in multiple jurisdictions at that time were such that this was possible.

[63]His approach to any witness who said anything which was contradictory to his account was that they were motivated by bad faith: i) The Wife was both a liar and a possible forger of documents and had created his father’s affidavit and documents like the TR1 linked to it. ii) His sister had perhaps drafted the TR1 – to set him up. iii) His father’s affidavit was a construct of the Wife’s and he hadn’t understood it although he was unable to explain how his father had come to confirm this when he gave oral evidence before Moylan J. iv) Mr Chaturvedi was dishonest and inconsistent. v) Mr Shamutete (and by inference Mr Mutati) was not telling the truth about Pictet and Cie as he knew the Husband had instructed them to put the monies in his (the Husband’s) name. vi) Mr Sodhi was not a credible witness and was lying about 88 Sydney Street. The Husband referred to a Court of Appeal decision which he suggested supported the conclusion Mr Sodhi was dishonest. In fact, the Court of Appeal seem not have drawn any conclusion on the allegation he had sought to obfuscate [1B-310]. The Statement of Mr Sodhi – although not called by anyone to give evidence – is a complete denial of any link to Fougeres and Sydney Street which given on the face of it is an asset worth £3.25m could be said to be against his interests although the ‘Agreement’ between Fougeres and Castlegrove would give him no interest in the property and so the Trust would be an empty vessel anyway. Together with the report from Copex, Mr Sodhi’s evidence appears credible. vii) Corporate Trustees (such as Copex) were seeking to cover their backs when the police were investigating unknown to him and that assertions attributed to him [1C-161-4] was not his language and that one would not discuss inheritance with them; the inference was they had fabricated his account of the funds being inheritance and family wealth and his reluctance for them to see Pictet and Cie bank statements was because they related to family affairs. The documents however suggest that either changes in the staff or changes in the regulatory framework had led them to ask awkward questions of the Husband in relation to the origin of funds and his by-passing the proper processes for accessing those funds. Eventually COPEX terminated the relationship with the Husband (although he had threatened to withdraw his business) – I infer because they did not get satisfactory answers. viii) Mr Sud (originator of a report to NCIS alleging the Husband has a Lombard Odier account with $4m in it) is malicious and in a relationship with the Wife. ix) The investigating police were corrupt. x) Devan was not telling the truth about what went on with Rekha and the ‘Finska’ account. xi) Mr Smallbone was not to be trusted. He was unable to explain why all of these people would have had cause to make up their accounts which just happened to place him at the centre of a web of financial transactions and manipulation.

[64]When he was faced with questions to which he could not answer with documentation he was either obstructive, evasive or creative. Occasionally, he was stumped. At no time did he concede a point – the furthest he went was to say he could not explain a document [1C-193]. He was particularly reluctant to engage with some of the questions Mr Kinnear asked although in the main the questions were relevant to the issues in this case. Only on rare occasions did it seem to me that Mr Kinnear had strayed more into Confiscation Order territory than financial remedy territory. The Husband refused to answer some questions and I warned him about the inferences that might be drawn. A few samples (of many) suffice to illustrate the Husband’s attitude to answering questions: i) Evasion: The e-mail his fiancée sent [1B-337] relating to the Bilt Finance, Hinduja account said on its face that the Husband has asked her to pass on the information. The details within the information could only have come from him and yet he spent a significant amount of time trying to avoid conceding and suggesting Ms Gulab perhaps got the information from other Arlington Sharma lawyers, no doubt because it contained the assertion that the funds were his and were raised in connection with a capital raising venture and were and always had been his. ii) Evasion: When asked about his assertion to COPEX that the source of funds in the Pictet and Cie account was inheritance and family wealth he sought to decline to answer the question. iii) Creativity and Obscurity: He said that his cash withdrawals of $9,500 from the Parabola Merrill Lynch account whilst on holiday in Las Vegas with his children, fiancée and her children was an example of him drawing his consultancy fees he was entitled to charge. His answer though was convoluted, confusing, brought in Shengo, not being able to bill in Zambian currency etc. The natural inference of drawing cash from this account was that it was because he regarded it as his – as he had told Mr Chaturvedi it was – but to concede this would be to concede non-disclosure in 2002-4 and his ownership of a significant asset. iv) Creativity: when challenged about a transfer of $725,000 from Pictet and Cie to Castlegrove he gave an account of this being a fee Rekha and her team earned for capital raising for Ndola– although it was paid 5 years odd after the capital raising venture had failed. Given Castlegrove was billing for as little as £1,000 which he signed for, the suggestion that a $725,000 commission was paid for funds which weren’t raised and which isn’t documented was a surprising one. Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati assert this was an unauthorised transaction undertaken without their knowledge. v) Evasion: when asked about the redaction to the documents [BG1-3213, 1415] he sent to IMM directing them to transfer Enzo funds to Merrill Lynch which removed the reference to where a sum of $165,706 had been paid to (and which he produced as part of his exhibit), he claimed not to have the unredacted version, that someone at Arlingtons Sharmas may have redacted it, then accepted it was probably him who redacted it and suggested the redacted entry might not be connected with the balance of the funds. He later suggested that although it was signed apparently by him that it might not have been him who signed it and then that it most probably was someone else who signed it and that he didn’t know what was redacted. It was obvious that the entry related to a substantial sum representing the balance of funds held by IMM and the obvious inference was he had redacted it because it disclosed a transfer to an as yet unidentified account. vi) Evasion: when asked about who the client was referred to in BG1-2884 – the suggestion is that it would be the Husband and he would have an interest in /control of Sunfor – he prevaricated and sought to avoid directly answering who the client would have been. vii) Stumped: [1C-193] he was unable to explain his recorded conversation when in 2007 he told COPEX he was to become the beneficial owner of Sunset and Westlake. Westlake had received $5.19m from Pictet and Cie which the Husband had said were from past income and family inheritance. He said Westlake and Sunset were to provide advisory services outside the UK and both were already owed $410,000 in consultancy fees and they would each be billing $300,000 per annum. He then said they never did bill the $300k pa but was unable to say what happened to the $400k each they were already owed. viii) Creativity + Evasion: when the Parabola/Miramar funds were to be transferred to Pictet and Cie and he had them placed in an account of which he was the named beneficial owner the Husband gave a very lengthy and convoluted answer about the process of dismantling an investment, of the structures not being ready, of the bank not being able to process the paperwork and he having to set it up in his name which was no answer to the question at all of why the funds were transferred into his name. He also said he had produced documents to Pictet and Cie which showed Mr Shamutete / Mr Mutati were beneficial owners but had not produced them in his Exhibits. Given the beneficial ownership of the Pictet and Cie accounts were front and centre of this hearing the notion that the Husband had overlooked producing the most critical documents that would have supported his case is untenable. ix) Obscure: His answer to a question about how Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati made their money was very non-specific (from investments) which given he acted for them for several years was surprising. x) Obscure: the purpose behind the 2001 transfer of Sydney Street was almost inexplicable on the Husband’s evidence. It was held in a trust so it was transferred to another trust to prevent Mr Almquist being exploited by others. xi) Evasion: he was unable to explain why the ECS documents showed he discussed Castlegrove and Lombard Odier [1C-83] and that he needed to see original documents and perhaps files had been mixed up xii) Evasion: he said he moved from COPEX in 2007 as they were involved in the Ibori investigation. The documents showed he left as they were asking awkward questions about the source of funds and his failure to use proper procedures for authorising transfers of funds. xiii) Evasion: the notes at 1B-252 could not be his as his handwriting is messier although the contents could realistically only be written by him. xiv) Evasion: He could not have lied to Mr Chaturvedi about the beneficial ownership of the Merrill Lynch account as Mr Chaturvedi would have seen the documents which identified who the directors were and that those records would have showed the beneficial owner of Parabola as Mr Shamutete. These would only have been seen if Mr Chaturvedi had demanded to see them and, even if he had, unless all the documents were produced it would not have been clear whether the Lukonka Trust or Mr Shamutete or someone else was the owner. xv) Evasion: when asked about Devan’s evidence and the documents which Devan said were dictated by the Husband and directed to be sent to Rekha he said it couldn’t have come from him as his phone calls from prison and emails were all monitored. Devan’s statement did not suggest that his instructions were given on the phone or that the Husband sent emails. xvi) Obstruction: when asked about his sister Rekha Yadav and her background, qualifications and work, he in the main refused to answer questions. The evidence about her from HMRC records and her own report on Fazmac tends to suggest she is not the sophisticated offshore financial adviser and manager that the Husband plainly is. xvii) Evasion: When asked about how Castlegrove came to purchase 88 Sydney Street he eventually conceded that as his sister was the owner of Castlegrove it would have been him who spoke to her about buying it. This is not referred to in any of the contemporaneous documents – which do not include the documents which show how it was Fougeres/Castlegrove came to be the purchaser. xviii) Evasion: When asked about how there were inconsistencies between the sums he notified to Mr Shamutete as being credited to his account and the actual sums (the suggestion being he had removed funds for his own benefit) he sought to suggest Mr Shamutete would have had the statements but then accepted he wouldn’t, but they would be available when he visited London and then suggested that reporting the sums to Mr Shamutete was not his role and it would have been a junior who did this. xix) Creation: When he got into difficulty over the TR1 mentioning the Imxal Discretionary Trust he seemed to extemporise saying that he often dictated at home in the bedroom and that the Wife could have overheard him talking of the Imxal Discretionary Trust and had created the TR1. xx) Creation: his name was put on Raj Classic as his sister needed a male name on it and she had provided the funds to buy it through Castlegrove. His attempts to explain why she didn’t put her name on it rather than her mother’s were tortuous.

[65]He was often inconsistent in his evidence; saying he and his mother were equal shareholders in Slavonian Finance but then saying later that Rekha had a share; that he was the beneficial owner of Crest High and then that he wasn’t but that Mr Okoloko was; that he put the Merrill Lynch documents in the void because he feared a burglary or that he couldn’t explain why he put them there and then saying they were all copied in the Arlingtons Sharmas files; he borrowed money from his sister Rekha (FA Cup Final tickets etc) but he had no debts in his Form E; Mr Shamutete was sent the bank statements/ he wasn’t sent them but could review them when he visited London; although they hadn’t sent statements for other accounts he did send statements to Mr Shamutete / Mr Mutati for Pictet and Cie but he hadn’t produced them in these proceedings; the fee paid to Castlegrove in 2006 was for the Ndola transaction although it had failed in 2000/02; that he was entitled to recover consultancy fees from the Merrill Lynch Parabola account by making cash withdrawals in Las Vegas but he accepted there would be no invoice found for it.

[66]He asserted that he had earned nothing for 17 years and apart from a compensation payment for a period of unlawful detention he had received no monies and had lived off the generosity of others. His gifts to his children of lap-tops and birthday parties were, he said, funded by others.

[67]When speaking of the events of the last 17 odd years and their consequences he displayed a considerable degree of self-pity and egocentricity. Although he was able to say that others had endured pain, his main focus was on himself and to the extent that his emotions were on display or engaged with what had happened, they were about him; the injustice of his convictions, the pain of prison and probation and the misconduct of so many of the witnesses against him in particular the Wife. This apparent inability to really empathise with others might explain his apparent ability to manipulate and exploit even his closest family members; if he is only able to see events from his own perspective and is blind to the consequences or impact on others, his use of even his son Devan to pursue his dishonest goals becomes more understandable.

[68]I shall refer to some of his S.25 statement (1-621) which addresses the issues between himself and the Wife. Ironically, it blisteringly criticises the Wife’s s.25 statement for not complying with guidance on such statements (I do not consider it to substantially offend) but goes on to comprehensively breach that guidance and launches a wide-ranging personal attack on the wife which goes so far beyond any response to her that it can only be to distract the court from its task and/or demonstrates a hatred bordering on pathological for the Wife. His contempt for her is palpable and he blames her for his and the family’s devastation. The Applicant's attempt to transform standard professional documentation into evidence of personal ownership fundamentally misunderstands the nature of commercial legal practice. The obvious conclusion - that this was client money, not personal funds - appears to escape the Applicant's understanding [1B-36] she issued an application to freeze the shares days before its public listing, effectively destroying the impending listing. These actions, combined with the shock of learning that Varsha had been in communication with DC McDonald, the senior corrupt case officer, since early December 2007 and sharing information, leading to police interview questions and stringent bail conditions, led me to cease all oral communications with her. The consequences of her actions have irreparably damaged our children's future prospects and robbed them of the immense financial security and opportunities that were rightfully theirs.

[69]He says of the Wife: These actions reveal a pattern of unethical behaviour, violating professional confidentiality for personal gain. Such conduct should be seriously considered when evaluating Varsha's credibility and motivations in these proceedings and more so as someone who claims to be a solicitor.

[70]His lengthy attacks on the CPS and their approach ignores the fact that he has been convicted of various offences by a jury, has pleaded Guilty to other offences and has been through an extremely lengthy fact finding process in the Confiscation proceedings which has resulted in findings being made about his beneficial ownership of assets (after taking into account evidence and submissions by some third parties) and that his proceeds of crime were assessed (using statutory assumptions) at £42m odd and realisable assets have been determined at £27m odd. He says:

“The judges two rulings are inexplicable appearing to defy logic, law and the evidence presented. The decisions raised serious questions about the application of legal principles in this case. Any judicial review of the rulings will expose significant inconsistencies that render the findings untenable”

The application for permission to appeal was refused on paper by Wall J. What the outcome of the renewed application for permission to appeal will be remains to be determined.

[71]It is not clear from this statement whether he accepted his guilt or not although he made clearer in his oral evidence that he does not and regards himself as the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice arising (I think) from police corruption or possibly incompetence. This finds a symmetry with his approach in the confiscation order hearing which HHJ Tomlinson described as saying he was innocent. He says: I was convicted in 2007 in a case widely recognised as stemming from a political dispute between the UK and Nigeria, based purely on inference in which I was regarded as collateral damage.

[72]He goes on to say: The CPS sabotaged my only chance for a fair appeal, and upon release, I endured 5 years of probation. Throughout this ordeal, I attended countless criminal court hearings, routinely being moved from prison to prison designed to exhaust my resources and energy. Throughout this, I was completely worn down. The convictions remain plagued with serious flaws - including police corruption and prosecutorial misconduct, that should ordinarily render them untenable, and the experience has caused immense financial, physical, and psychological trauma, leaving me with deep anxieties and stress that are difficult to fully express. His self-pity and lack of acceptance of responsibility for his conduct are stark.

[73]He says: It pains me to see Varsha distort my relationship with my father, which was one of respect and shared purpose. Her distortion of my father-son bond is not only painful but purposefully misrepresented, aligning with her overall strategy to harm me… To correct the record, it was well known that my late father never trusted Varsha. Given that DM Lampert has found, as has Moylan J, that the husband’s father had become estranged from his own family but had retained a fond relationship with the Wife and his grandchildren to the extent that he named the Wife as his executor, and the Wife and his two grandsons as his residuary beneficiaries this assertion also illustrates the fantasy world that the husband inhabits.

[74]I have referred to much of his evidence about the question of the date of acquisition of assets and third-party interests in the detailed Chronology which forms part of this judgment and that also contains reference to other aspects of his evidence contained in other documents.

[75]He says (1-632) no evidence of hidden assets has been found despite the most extensive searches. Only if one can say they are not hidden because they have been found could this be correct. The source of the funds paid into the Odessa accounts which formed part of the basis for set-aside in itself established hidden assets and the revelation of the Husband’s interest in all the assets uncovered in the criminal investigation (including Merrill Lynch’s evidence of his beneficial ownership of the Parabola accounts) all show that as of 2004 the Husband had ‘hidden’ assets. He asserts: For example, Nitu's family unhesitatingly put-up funds to meet my huge bail amount and met all my legal costs incurred during my 2008-2014 criminal proceedings. When financial restraints were imposed on me in 2008, rendering me unable to pay for our children's education, Nitu stepped in to cover school fees for 2009 and continued to support their educational needs at the time. There is of course a significant question mark over Nitu’s finances and the Husband’s assets which emerges from HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment (1-832) and which reveals that the Husband made personal payments for school fees and to Ms Gulab from accounts in the name of Sennbridge Capital and that she was involved in the Bilt Finance account with Hinduja Bank which HHJ Tomlinson concluded was beneficially owned by the Husband.

[76]He claims impecuniosity and no earning capacity whilst asserting that the Wife has a significant earning capacity and has fraudulently claimed benefits (1-632). If she has fraudulently claimed benefits and has been less than completely frank about how she has deployed her assets they are a drop in the ocean as compared to the Husband’s, although I conclude she is right when she says that her capital was left out of account by the LAA as it was intended for a house purchase.

[77]The Husband says: As for obligations to our children, each day without them is heartrending. My love and commitment to them remain unwavering and unconditional, despite the painful separation. I stand ready to do whatever I can for them, without hesitation or reservation. Despite the challenges we have faced, and despite their behaviour regarding inheritance matters, I have consistently strived to maintain a positive relationship with them as their father. This dedication extends beyond mere words - I remain available to them on every level, offering support in whatever way I can. Our bond is rooted in the enduring love of a parent for their child. Regardless of past conflicts or current circumstances, my door is always open, and my support for their well-being and success is steadfast and unshakeable. I do not doubt that he believes this, but it illustrates how very far removed from reality he is and how he is able to ‘convincingly’ depict a picture which is so far removed from reality as to approach fantasy. If he truly wished to support them, he would admit the truth of his actions and do what he could to extricate their mother and them from the mess he has solely created. His position in relation to the Confiscation Order itself has been to support third-party interests and to deny the possibility that any part of his realisable assets are attributable to the marriage. Acceptance of his criminality and his non-disclosure accompanied by a fulsome explanation of the creation of wealth prior to separation might have permitted of the possibility of an agreement being reached between the Wife and the CPS as to an award of capital which might have allowed her to house herself and to meet her financial needs long ago.

[78]His case against the Wife (1B-37) suggests that he agrees with HHJ Tomlinson’s finding on benefit from crime and thus that all the assets are tainted so as to refute the Wife’s claim and to attack her credibility for now seeking a ‘tainted’ asset when she said to the UKSC she would not. Of course, the simple solution to this apparent contradiction is that some of the taint arises from the application of assumptions against the Husband which do not bite against the Wife and that taint doesn’t necessarily involve the entirety of an asset (from her standpoint anyway).

[79]He says that the Wife is responsible for his estrangement from his children – not his own actions. The treatment of our children throughout this ordeal has been deeply distressing. They have been used as unwitting pawns in Varsha’s bitter dispute, including being denied crucial financial support in their lives when they needed it most in 2009 so as not to disrupt their private education. The persistent campaign to alienate them from me over many years represents one of the most severe forms of parental estrangement imaginable.

[80]In his evidence in response to the Wife’s claim, he produced Exhibit BG1 which contained 3936 pages. This contained large tranches of material which sought to refute various of the Wife’s assertions about the history of their marriage – for instance large numbers of documents relating to the refurbishment of Highlander which showed the Husband was in communication with the builders and wrote letters aimed at showing the Wife did not manage the works. In some areas this documentation did tend to support aspects of his case that the Wife was exaggerating, and it did tend to support his case that he was doing genuine legal work for clients including working for Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati. However, it also included material which either was irrelevant or unnecessary but tended to obscure or overwhelm but also material which undermined his own case – for instance Rekha’s report on Fazmac which confirmed he was a co-owner and so proved the case of non-disclosure against him from his original Form E.

[81]I make reference to all of these matters not because they are all directly relevant to the matters in dispute but because they add further to the cloud over the Husband’s credibility, honesty, reliability and perspective that when approaching any matter of fact which requires resolution one has to bear in mind that the Husband is capable of the most breath-taking dishonesty, shape-shifting assertions, inability to accept any personal responsibility, propensity to forge documentation and complete lack of objectivity that any assertion he makes which is not supported by contemporary and verifiably genuine documentation has to be regarded as suspect if it comes into conflict with an alternative account or inference.

[82]He was a profoundly dishonest and evasive witness whose account could not be relied on save where supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence from a source independent of the Husband himself. That is not to say he lied on every issue or that his convictions and proven lies lead me to conclude I should reject his evidence in its entirety and simply accept any alternative. However, the overwhelming weight of the documentary evidence, taken together with the evidence of others (whether given orally and tested or in writing), findings made by other courts including HHJ Tomlinson, inferences which can legitimately be drawn from documents or combinations of documents and testimony all point to the conclusion that the Husband is thoroughly and pervasively dishonest and that the broad thrust of his account of being a hard-working, family orientated and impecunious man who has been ill-used by others and subject to a terrible injustice by the state and by the Wife is so very far from the truth that it is hard to comprehend how he can put it forward.

[83]The reality of the Husband is that he is: i) Hard-working but in his own interests ii) Self-centred and selfish to a degree where he is willing to manipulate and abuse the trust of his closest family members and to expose them to arrest, detention, humiliation, and stress to pursue his own interests and to show almost no remorse for having done so. It might properly be said of the Husband “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his family for his life” iii) Wholly unable to accept responsibility for his actions but rather to accuse others, including his own son, of dishonesty or corruption or greed or self-protection – all of which in fact are aspects of his own behaviour which he projects onto third parties. iv) Dishonest to a degree which would be shocking in any individual but in a former member of the legal profession is breath-taking. v) A man who has used his intelligence and charm to misuse both systems, clients, and colleagues to enrich himself both by legitimate and unlawful means and to use his expertise in tax avoidance and offshore structures to hide his wealth from his Wife, his family, this court and the CPS. vi) Dogmatic and tenacious in the extreme who will deploy every possible weapon in his armoury that is available to him whether legal or not to protect himself and further his ends or to prevent others securing what he does not want them to have. vii) In consequence of all of the above, a witness whose evidence is inherently unreliable and to be accepted only when corroborated by other reliable evidence.

Mr Shamutete

[84]His main statement is at 1A-155. I take into account that when he gave it in 2016, he was 70 years of age and that he was having to go back in history some 40 years. However, at face value the issue could not be of more importance in terms of financial security as he seeks to claim the residue of assets which amounted to $17m in 1999-2001. He relies primarily on the evidence that was placed before HHJ Tomlinson which takes the form of an Exhibit to his statement (it is dated 29 January 2016 when Mr Shamutete was 70). He takes issue with HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions that Parabola was beneficially owned by the Husband and that it was not funded from his legitimately earned resources. He did not give oral evidence to HHJ Tomlinson. He has not given oral evidence to me.

[85]Much of the material in his statement and the documents he refers to and his accounts are incorporated within the Chronology. His case is that (in so far as assets are claimed by the Wife in which he says he has an interest). i) The Parabola account at UBP was his, was used by him to pay bills, was transferred to Pictet and Cie in 2005 and that the Husband dishonestly identified those sums as his and mixed them with funds belonging to Mr Mutati/Miramar. ii) That funds held by Willard ($2m), Zetland ($2.415m + £56k) and that transfers to Castlegrove ($1.15m) are his which derive from the UBP Parabola monies. iii) The Parabola Merrill Lynch funds came from Enzo International Ltd which he was the beneficial owner of in the form of $1.539 on 6 January 2000 and a further $400,000 being the proceeds of sale of his flat at 1 Trinity Court on 11 February 2000.

[86]His narrative statement from 2016 which in itself is based on a statement he gave in Zambia in May 2012 sets out a little more detail of the background to his relationship with the Husband and his investment history with him. He is a mining engineer by profession and was the Chief Executive of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines until his retirement in 2000. He thinks he met the Husband at a social event, possibly when he visited London for the annual meeting of The London Metal Exchange. He says that the Husband told him that his firm would be able to assist him in “establishing” an offshore corporate structure which he could use for holding “some” of his assets outside Zambia in a way which was secure and confidential. Thereafter, the Husband set up the structures (see the chronology) and he transferred funds from his Citibank account into the Schroders bank account in the names of Enzo International Ltd and Parabola. He says the funds which were paid into the Schroders Enzo account were subsequently transferred to the Parabola account and that he forgot about the existence of Enzo when originally spoken to by police in 2012. This is something of a surprise given that Enzo subsequently had very significant sums pass through its IMM accounts which funded both the Merrill Lynch Parabola account but which also contained very substantial funds at later dates. He explains how the Parabola account with Schroders was used to pay personal and business expenses from time to time including the use of an AMEX and a Visa card. All bank statements and other documents relating to the company structures were to be held at the Husband’s London offices. He says he later established the Merrill Lynch account for Parabola in New York and that $2 million was paid into this. His initial Zambian statement recorded that this was paid by Mr Rozan, but he says this was incorrect, although Mr Rozan was the source of the monies. In fact, documents show that the Merrill Lynch account was funded through the IMM Enzo account. He says he also established a further account in the name of Parabola with BNP, and this was funded in the sum of $6,876,666 which derive from the gemstone business he conducted in partnership with Mr Rozan. He confirms that his initial $1.7m had grown to $17m through gemstone trading. These funds subsequently passed onto UBP and ultimately to Pictet and Cie.

[87]He says that it appeared to him that the operating arrangements were all going well, and this was why he agreed to transfer the funds from UBP to Pictet and Cie in 2005. He says he retained no records at all. From then until 2008 it appears nothing of note occurred; indeed, he makes no reference to receiving any information about his investments at all during this period. When visited by police he spoke to the Husband and was told that his Pictet and Cie account was in the name of Westlake and that he should not worry. He says he took the Husband at his word and it was only in 2009 when contacted by Mr Patel of Imani Securities that he took further action. He had done business with Imani and it was then he became aware of the Husband’s possible criminal conduct. He then learned of his conviction and was later contacted by the Husband’s sister who assured him that his monies were safe and would in due course be returned to him. In May 2011 he instructed English solicitors who began to investigate. They notified claims to the CPS against the Parabola Schroders and Merrill Lynch accounts. On 13 January 2015 Mr Shamutete started civil proceedings against the Husband personally; not it seems against the firm of Arlingtons Sharmas and nor does it seem any complaint to the SRA or any claim on Arlingtons Sharmas’ insurance has been made. They also made enquiries in Singapore and received documents from Pictet and Cie which showed payments made which were not authorised by Mr Shamutete.

[88]Mr Shamutete deals with some payments made into the Parabola Schroders account which were linked to the Bombardier purchase and he denies any knowledge of this; in fact, the payments into that account appear to have left as a single payment 2 months later.

[89]Mr Shamutete did not seek to give oral evidence. His written statements are of limited content. I appreciate he is now in his late 70’s. He did not give evidence in the Crown Court. No explanation has been given for not giving evidence, although Mr Christopher floated some possibilities in submissions.

[90]His evidence is very limited in its detail and leaves a raft of questions unanswered. There has been no opportunity to test his account or to seek clarification. In particular his statement for these proceedings does not take the opportunity to address any of the issues identified in the judgment of HHJ Tomlinson which caused him to reject his case that he had provided the initial funds for the Parabola/Enzo investments. He says at # 7 of his statement “if the starting point in these proceedings were to be HHJ Tomlinson’s ruling, very significant unfairness to me would result because, among other things I understand will be referred to in submissions, that ruling was obtained on the basis of evidence which I would wish to submit does not support HHJ Tomlinson’s rulings, but to which I am unable to now refer.” It is true that MLA material from Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore has not been deployed to its full extent in these proceedings because consent has not been given and so only material which has been obtained through other sources from those jurisdictions can be relied on. However, all the documentation that he had about the seedcorn prior to 1999 would be available to him and almost none has been produced by him either in this court or in the Confiscation Order proceedings and his narrative accounts are essentially the same. However, even allowing for the unavailability of some MLA material, what he says in narrative terms about how he came to acquire the ‘seedcorn’ sums initially, how his relationship with the Husband evolved, their dealings in the early years and in particular their dealings from 2005 – 2010 is cursory in the extreme. It seems from his statement that for a period of 5 years he had almost no engagement with his investments, made no call for funds from them for himself and has no records of any dealings with the Husband over them. Given it was said in documents setting up the BNP accounts that he was interested in safe and modest growth over a 3-5 year period and that he operated in mining, trading and was a majority shareholder in Zambian Consolidation Co [1B-1383] this hands off attitude seems very hard to understand. The disclosure to BNP said his wealth had accrued from selling shares in ‘ZCCH’ and other companies in Zambia and from profits accrual [1B-1385] which is at odds with what was put forward to HHJ Tomlinson. No evidence as to the source of funds has been put forward – other than the limited reference to other entities which funded some of Enzo and those appear to be of a similar nature to the offshore entities which Mr Shamutete was supposedly going to the Husband to create.

[91]In relation to the central purpose of his intervention – namely to lay claim to the funds in the Parabola/Enzo accounts, he said in his statement [1A-167]: As I explained in the Zambia statement the source of the funds [$6m in Schroders and $6,876,666 in BNP Paribas and inferentially the $2m in Enzo/Merrill Lynch] was the gemstone business in partnership with Mr J P Rozan which appreciated from USD $1.7million to more than USD $17 million over a period of about 25 years. HHJ Tomlinson considered this evidence in some detail. The implication is that prior to 1975 he had acquired $1.7m which he invested in gems in parallel to his mining work and it grew to $17m over the 25 years from 1975-2000. This period covered from shortly after graduating from Imperial College and beginning his work in a copper mine and whilst rising to become its Chief Executive and retiring in 2000. Before HHJ Tomlinson, his case had been that the use of his daily allowance of $450 whilst working away from home had accumulated to form the seedcorn $1.7m – so in 1975. As HHJ Tomlinson noted, the maths did not add up even if one added in the $800,000 Mr Shamutete said he had accumulated from business; it also not being apparent how he had in 1975 accumulated $800,000 from business as a recent graduate who had just entered the mining industry and when the value of his shareholdings in 2001 was only circa $2.5m. None of the questions which arise from these facts can be answered by him as he declined to give evidence.

[92]One might have expected him to have scoured his memory and his documentary records to put together a far more detailed and documented history of how he generated the seedcorn and documentary evidence demonstrating that in Citibank in Switzerland he had held sums which reflected the $17m he said he provided. I made provision in the directions for the intervenors to be able to produce any material they wished to rely on – including material which they could have obtained independently of MLA processes, but which might be its duplicate.

[93]In fact, Mr Shamutete has been able to obtain material independently of the MLA material from applications he has made in Singapore. If he had invested $17m odd in Citibank – or indeed any other institution – and that it was the seedcorn which supports him being the sole beneficial owner of Parabola and the accounts associated with it is hard to understand why he should not have been able to obtain other material. In any event, as he himself acknowledges, he could have instructed lawyers in each jurisdiction to obtain if (for reasons unknown) the institutions failed to provide it to a person who was identified by their records as the beneficial owner. Given his case is that HHJ Tomlinson failed to give due consideration to the records which had been obtained by MLA, it seems curious that he should not have sought to obtain it – and he has been aware of these proceedings and the issue of obtaining evidence through independent routes for many months. None which sheds any light on the provenance of the funds pre 1999 has been produced. No evidence has been adduced which explains why that has not been done or is not possible.

[94]The main issue between the Husband and Mr Shamutete was of course whether the Husband had misappropriated the Parabola UBP funds when transferring them to Pictet. The trail of funds from their emergence is well illustrated in the Chart produced by Mr Christopher and there is (as was identified by HHJ Tomlinson) no significant dispute about their movement between 1999-2006 when they arrived in Enzo Schroder and onward to Parabola Schroder, Enzo IMM and onward to Merrill Lynch and BNP Parabola and onward to UBP and then Pictet and Cie K888156 (Gohil) and D888296 Westlake. After their arrival in Westlake, the trail becomes somewhat less distinct and funds from the Husband’s criminality begin to mingle. Although Mr Shamutete explained and produced documents which showed how funds from BNP and UBP were applied for his personal benefit and said that he had meetings with the Husband that reviewed his investments up until the transfer to Pictet and Cie, thereafter he is silent which begs a whole series of questions about what reviews were taking place, what information he was being provided with, what questions he was asking if none was being provided and why there was this change in how the monies were handled and his engagement with them. It is correct that the evidence supports his case [#23] that Parabola funds were paid to Imani Securities and he says this was as a result of business dealings with Imani. The evidence before HHJ Tomlinson was that Mr Shamutete placed investments with Imani. The difference may not matter. However, there is still a significant evidential void crying out for explanation as to what happened after November 2005 in relation to the Pictet and Cie monies of Mr Shamutete and indeed the Merrill Lynch monies.

[95]Another dispute emerged in the course of the Husband’s evidence which was whether Mr Shamutete had ever been involved in the Wings Aviation venture which involved the Bombardier airplane purchase. This arose as the Husband suggested some of the funds which were paid out of the Pictet and Cie Parabola/Miramar funds were paid as commission in relation to Mr Shamutete’s involvement in the Wings deal. The Husband sought to adduce a further significant bundle of evidence which he said showed this involvement. I declined to permit him to adduce that evidence and indicated that I could deal with the issue on the basis of the evidence I had heard, and Mr Shamutete was not giving evidence to contradict his account. Ultimately, it is not an issue which needs to be determined as the issue of how the Husband dealt with the funds after 2005 and whether they were beneficially owned by him or Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati falls to be decided on other evidence. It is clear that the Husband continued to make payments out of the funds on Mr Shamutete’s behalf but also to treat them as his own.

[96]Whilst Mr Shamutete’s evidence aligns with some of the documentation and so supports the conclusion that he is a real person who had dealings with the Husband which were genuine business transactions there are so many unanswered questions which arise in relation to the seedcorn for his investments and the provenance and his interactions with the Husband over the years in particular after the Pictet and Cie transfers that his election not to give evidence and to offer no explanation for that when even in this financial remedy arena some £5-7m odd is in play (the Parabola Schroders is not) inevitably invites the submissions that he is hiding something and is afraid that in giving evidence it will unpick some of the narrative that can stand with the documents. I have considered the possibility that he might not want to give evidence as doing so would potentially expose to publicity the fact that he is a wealthy man and that might have consequences. However, these proceedings are not taking place in open court and so the court retains the discretion to limit reporting. With so many questions arising and so much hanging on an explanation for the origin of the funds which HHJ Tomlinson found against Mr Shamutete on, it seems the only reasonable inference to him not giving evidence is that his evidence would not withstand scrutiny and that leads on to what inferences can be drawn as to what would be revealed were it to be tested. I shall return to this.

Mr Mutati

[97]His statement at 1A-176 and his statement in the Confiscation Order proceedings [1A-184] are, like Mr Shamutete, limited in being directed mainly at an analysis of the documents and giving only relatively little detail about the arrangements with the Husband. Indeed, their cases have a symmetry that is notable. Much of his evidence is also incorporated into the Chronology. His case is that: i) Miramar was his company established in 1999 by the Husband in Mauritius. The Husband acted for him between 1999 and 2010 and he operated Miramar through a Power of Attorney. ii) The Husband opened a bank account with BNP (Guernsey) London branch for Miramar on which the Husband was the authorised signatory although he provided documentation confirming that Mr Mutati was the beneficial owner. iii) The funds which went into the BNP account came from his emerald gemstone business with Mr Indrissa Senghor of Senegal. iv) The UBP account for Miramar was beneficially owned by him and that account was used to pay bills on his London flat. In 2002 he was advised by the Husband to transfer his funds to UBP which he did and “was subsequently introduced to my account manager Mr Jean Noel Simone”. Although a small point, the documentary evidence confirms Jean-Noel Simone was at BNP when Mr Mutati opened the accounts and so he would have known him several years before. v) Some years later the Husband advised him that better returns on his funds would be made if they were transferred to a bank in the Far East. He accepted his recommendation to transfer to bank Pictet. vi) On 4 November 2005, he instructed UBP to transfer all the Miramar funds to Pictet and Cie and on 9 November 2005 $2.006m was transferred and he assumed that a Miramar account had been opened and that Pictet and Cie were aware he was the beneficial owner. He says the Husband updated him on the performance of assets and he was shown copies of bank statements. Quite how he did not notice that the sums in the accounts were vastly in excess of that which he had transferred and that they were not held in the Miramar name is not explained. vii) In 2010 the Husband advised him to move his funds to a bank in the Middle East but before that could happen, he discovered the Husband was under investigation in relation to Mr Ibori. He spoke to the Husband who assured him that the allegations were false but in 2011 he discovered the Husband had been convicted and sent to prison. viii) He thereafter instructed solicitors (the same as Mr Shamutete) who began to investigate what had happened and to seek to recover the Miramar funds. He instructed solicitors in Singapore who obtained the documentation from Pictet and Cie which showed the Husband had not opened a Miramar account but had transferred it into his own name from which unauthorised payments were made before it was transferred onto another account in the name of Westlake Capital Limited. This also made a variety of payments including to Willard Investments. ix) He seeks the return of the $2.006m which was originally paid to Pictet and Cie K888156 which he suggests are now located either in the Sloane Capital Account with Pictet and Cie [1A-188] or the Julius Baer Willard account. x) He denies any knowledge or authorisation of payments of $611,000 to Earls Court International Limited which were authorised by the Husband possibly from Miramar/Parabola funds.

[98]Like Mr Shamutete, it is said the initial funds came from Citibank [1B-1385], although HHJ Tomlinson referred to Mr Mutati’s evidence being that the monies were paid from Idrissa Sengor and yet other documents [1B-1394] suggest that funds came from Chase Manhattan bank. He has not produced any document to confirm the source of funds – the best account is contained in HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment. There is no explanation for why his contract with Mr Senghor should not be available (it is referred to) or why the Chase Manhattan or Citibank records could not be obtained. HHJ Tomlinson refers to Mr Mutati’s evidence of where the emeralds came from as being opaque and possibly supporting a conclusion that their activities were unlawful. Like Mr Shamutete he gives no reason for not giving evidence. Evidence could be given remotely if he were unable to attend in person for health reasons – although if that were the issue one would expect him to have outlined the evidence. If he were too ill to give any evidence that could be explained. Even were he embarrassed at the possibility of publicity about his wealth or that publicity might expose he or his family to danger that could be explained, and publicity could be controlled by the court in any event. I exclude these as possibilities, given they have not been put forward with evidence when they could easily have been.

[99]The most likely explanation for their non-attendance and unwillingness to put themselves in a position where they would be asked to answer some of the very many questions is that they are unable to provide satisfactory answers and in doing so would potentially expose themselves to something worse than the embarrassment of being exposed as dishonest. Given there are very significant sums at stake, in terms of the proportion of their wealth, the reason for their non-attendance is most likely that exposure would lead to something worse than simple loss of the funds and that most likely means exposure of illegality of some sort either in the generation of funds or in acting together with the Husband in some illegality in how the funds and structures were set up or in them acting in concert later to maintain the funds are theirs.

Babulal Ramji Gohil

[100]The Husband’s father was joined as 2nd Respondent after the 2004 Consent Order was set aside. He had of course given evidence by video link to Moylan J and his evidence was integral to the set aside and to the UKSC upholding Moylan J’s decision. His Affidavit of March 2007 has been the subject of severe criticism by the Husband. As I have set out in my account of the Wife’s evidence, I accept her account of how the Affidavit was obtained and on the face of it, it is undoubtedly an account which the second respondent adhered to both at the time it was signed and before Moylan J when he gave evidence over 5 years later. The affidavit of Babulal Ramji Gohil [1B-1290] is a long and complex document. It bears his signature on every page with additional signatures where he has made amendments to the typed script. That being so, I am satisfied that this was an affidavit which the Husband’s father wished to put forward as his own and that he had considered its contents carefully and was satisfied that it was the truth as he saw it. Moylan J heard him give evidence and clearly drew a distinction between the credibility of the Husband on which he made various adverse comments and the credibility of the Husband’s father which he accepted at face value. The statement contains a degree of dissatisfaction or ill will towards his son and he frankly acknowledges this and one can readily see the atmosphere between a proud and traditional father and his independent and disrespectful son. To the extent that the affidavit displays the sense of ill will, it must be borne in mind that Babulal Gohil was actively seeking to support his former daughter in law.

[101]It is a narrative full of detail. His letter of June 2007 confirmed he had made a payment to IMM Hempton International of £15,700 being the proceeds of sale of the Husband’s car. His Affidavit says in short: i) Gives an account of the Husband taking advantage of his father by failing to pay his share of contributions to the household on time and ultimately forging his signature. ii) Gives an account of the Husband’s extravagance in relation to his car ownership, his luxury watch collection, his children’s private education and his apparent wealth. iii) States that the Divine Sheraton Plaza property was purchased using funds provided by the husband along with a second property Flat 1002, Ashoka. iv) Alleges the Husband pressured his father to transfer Highlander into his name, as well as that of the second and third respondents, and that in June 200,1 he presented a document that would have transferred ownership into the names of the second and third respondents and the Imxal Discretionary Trust. v) Produces the letter sent by the Husband in January 2002 which accused the Second Respondent of selling the Husband’s properties. vi) Produces the bankers draft and the document offering to purchase his share of Highlander and the Indian properties for £100,000. vii) Confirms that in 2004 he offered to help the Wife and prepared an affidavit but on the advice of his solicitor, Mr Rizwan Siddique, he then withdrew his support. He later fell out with Mr Siddique when he came to understand that Mr Siddique had been acting in concert with the Husband. Any document emanating after April 2004 from Mr Siddique was done without his approval. viii) States that the following assets are not connected to or owned by him: a) A Bank Indosuez account which bears his name and that of the 3rd Respondent. b) Any account linked to Odessa Management whether in Switzerland or anywhere else. The purported signature is a forgery. c) Brown and Shipley private bank from which £53,517 is said by the Husband to have come. d) NatWest Gibraltar: a cheque from which paid council tax on Highlander. e) Mercedes SL Convertible.

[102]The Second Respondent died in 2018. That his will left his share in Highlander to the Wife and to his 2 grandsons is an indication of how strongly he felt – perhaps at his son and his family’s treatment of him but also probably at how unfairly he thought the Wife and the children had been treated. His hostility – perhaps a combination of disappointment, shame and anger at his son’s behaviour – is all too obvious but the substance of his evidence has a ring of truth to it which importantly is corroborated both by the documents he produced but also by much of the other evidence which confirm the Husband’s propensity to dishonesty and manipulation. I accept his evidence at face value.

Kamla Gohil

[103]The Husband’s mother had been the Third Respondent since soon after Moylan J set aside the 2004 Consent Order; the deceased 2nd Respondent and Odessa Management Limited were also Respondents. During preliminary hearings, the Third Respondent had attended, assisted by her daughter, Sima Sud. A Position Statement had been filed by her prior to the hearing. She maintained that the sums in Slavonian Finance were hers and she relied on the Wife’s concessions in the 2004 order in this regard; repeating the claim made by the Husband that that part of the order had not been set aside by Moylan J. Her evidence is highly critical of the Wife – accusing her of unjustifiably commencing litigation in probate and the Land Registry; both of which the Wife won and in which the Third Respondent’s evidence was rejected. She relied on her ill health and elected not to attend the final hearing or to give evidence. She relied on similar reasons for not attending the hearing in 2012 before Moylan J [1-688 #53] She asked that Sima Sud attend which she did. Her statement [2-196] is written in legal language akin to a Skeleton Argument rather than a statement of fact and contains arguments as to how the court should interpret the documentary evidence. It is mainly a narrative criticism of the reasoning of HHJ Tomlinson. Given the other evidence about her and her Husband and other conclusions judges have reached about her capability it seems likely that the statement is a product of one of her children’s efforts more than her own. It contains little to no evidence of fact. She maintains that she is entitled to Highlander and to 50% of the sums in the Slavonian Finance accounts and relies on the documentation showing a transfer from the Odessa accounts to Slavonian Finance as the basis for this and the fact that bank documentation identifies her as a joint beneficial owner. Although she relies on documents referring to the source of funds as personal savings, she gives no evidence as to how those savings were acquired and accepts she had nothing to do with the account until after the Husband and Wife separated – even after the 2nd Respondent left for India. She makes no effort to engage with the evidence of her deceased Husband and does not challenge any of the detail of his account but simply makes ‘submission’ points about it. She challenges the conclusion of HHJ Tomlinson that the husband was the beneficial owner of Slavonian Finance and that the funds were tainted. She maintains Castlegrove is the beneficial owner of Raj Classic although she jointly holds the legal title with the Husband – although for reasons which are not obvious, she also criticises the conclusion of HHJ Tomlinson in relation to Raj Classic. I am satisfied that the majority of the contents of the statement are a product of the Husband’s input probably together with Sima Sud. In terms of its content as evidence she could give as a witness of fact, it is of almost no value and its significance is probably greater in terms of what it does not seek to do – in particular, offering any alternative version of the evidence of the 2nd Respondent - than in what it does. Given her age and her limited knowledge of the finances of the family, her non-attendance is of little real significance. The fact she offers no challenge to the evidence of her deceased Husband is. The evidence of the Third Respondent has not been tested but has been considered by various courts before me not to be reliable. Her assertion to the Land Registry in 2006 that she had been left penniless in 2001/2002 was wholly contradicted by the Odessa funds evidence (she receiving £228k in 2002). DM Lampert was very dubious about the reliability and indeed content of her evidence and who had authored it given the unlikelihood it was her.

Castlegrove/Sunfor:

[104]Rakesh Shetty, a senior executive filed a statement on behalf of Castlegrove Inc and Sunfor Commercial Inc dated 24 November 2024 [1A-214]. It consists of 25 pages which is primarily (akin to the Third Respondent’s statement) a critique of the judgment of HHJ Tomlinson. It is not clear what Mr Shetty’s position is – he does not (in his statement) appear to be a director of either Castlegrove or Sunfor. Mr Shetty identified that Mr Juggapah was a director of Sunfor Commercial Inc. However, in the Opening Statement for Castlegrove Inc, Mr Juggapah says he is a director of Castlegrove. He also filed a Position Statement dated 23 September 2024 [1-71] in which he said he was a duly authorised director of Castlegrove. In that Position Statement, it was asserted that the shareholders and directors of Castlegrove had remained consistent throughout its existence and that the Husband had no connection with it. He confirmed that the company was seeking to challenge the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson that Castlegrove and Sunfor were in fact the assets of the Husband. The statement is filed in support of Castlegrove’s absolute claims over: i) The account with Julius Baer 255.0821 ii) The account with Pictet and Cie G-17’156 (it is not clear if this is the same as a/c No: 00433819 [1B-1204]) iii) Raj Classic iv) 88 Sydney Street v) Sunfor Commercial Inc and its rental accounts with Foxtons and State Bank of Mauritius. The statement presents a submission and an analysis of how the conclusions that the Husband was the true beneficial owner of the companies in the Confiscation Order appear to have been reached without reference to documentary evidence or relevant law and asserts that the documentary evidence conclusively establishes the legitimate corporate existence of Castlegrove Inc and its title to assets. It asserts that the Wife’s evidence does not establish any link with the matrimonial period. It also asserts that no funds in Castlegrove or Sunfor are linked to the indictments or Nigeria and that the two transactions from Mr Shamutete (presumably this means the Pictet and Cie K888156 account in the Husband’s sole name) did not create any beneficial interest for the Husband.

[105]Given the statement is in large measure a legal argument or critique of the Confiscation order judgment based on his own understanding of legal propositions rather than a statement of fact, I do not propose to set it out at length but shall summarise some of its essential points: i) The proper application of the POCA regime and company law mean HHJ Tomlinson should not have pierced the corporate veil and treated the entities as the Husband’s. ii) The judge should not have concluded that Ms Yadav’s income could not have generated the Castlegrove/Sunfor assets as it reversed the burden of proof. iii) The judge did not examine Castlegrove’s corporate structure sufficiently to conclude that the Husband was more than a simple nominee and applied circular reasoning using assumptions to establish beneficial ownership. iv) The funding of the purchase of 88 Sydney Street was shown to be with legitimately obtained funds, including bank lending, and should not have been subject to a finding it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. v) Castlegrove was not created for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of crime and nor was it used for that purpose. vi) The conclusion that $725,000 which was deposited with Castlegrove was unconnected to an event linked to Mr Shamutete was wrong. No documentary evidence in support of this challenge is referred to but simply a legal argument. On this, it would have been open to Mr Shetty to have provided all the documentation that supported the case that this was a fee Castlegrove legitimately charged Parabola/Mr Shamutete for capital raising work relating to the Ndola mining venture. vii) Castlegrove did not fund the purchase of Raj Classic with payments of $72,120. A legal argument is deployed to challenge HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusion – no documentary or other evidence is adduced. viii) The finding that neither Castlegrove or Rekha Yadav have any proprietary interest in the Julius Baer account and that the Husband is the beneficial owner is contrary to POCA.

[106]From paragraph 21 in tabular form, Mr Shetty presents the documentary records which he asserts prove that Castlegrove is a separate legal entity and that Rekha Yadav is the beneficial owner of the assets. The documents relating to the purchase of 88 Sydney Street are presented. These documents are considered within the Chronology. Taken at face value they do as they say they do. They all appear (it seems) within BG1.

[107]The assertion that the shareholders and directors of Castlegrove have remained consistent does not bear scrutiny; the list of shareholders at 1B-1027/8 shows multiple changes including to and from Rekha Yadav and the evidence of Mr Shetty provides no narrative as to how Castlegrove Inc generated its income and no explanation for why and for what consideration the changes in shareholders occurred in relation to an entity which owned assets worth several million dollars. I note that the current shareholder KGBFYOC Foundation is registered as the same address as Sunfor and Castlegrove are now – namely in Arun Chambers, Mumbai. This absence of evidence in relation to how Castlegrove generated its assets and why Rekha Yadav transferred ownership – seemingly for no consideration – is a very significant feature in the evaluation of Castlegrove/Sunfor’s case. The fact that both entities also chose not to attend the trial in person or by counsel or to give evidence but simply to attend remotely via Mr Juggapah means that none of those important issues can be explored. Given that Castlegrove and Sunfor both challenge the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson and assert that he got the evaluation fundamentally wrong; this hearing presented an opportunity for them to present a comprehensive rebuttal of that analysis, but they chose not to do so. Nor, as far as I can tell, did they present any additional material which would answer the questions about how Castlegrove and Rekha Yadav generated their income and thus their assets and demonstrate it was not the Husband who the source as other evidence was strongly suggests. No evidence was put forward explaining why Mr Shetty or Mr Juggapah could not attend in person to give evidence or give evidence remotely. They took the same stance as Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati, the Third Respondent and Rekha Yadav which was to rely solely on a document trail and not to be prepared to back that up with oral evidence tested by cross-examination. In respect of Mr Shetty and Mr Juggapah as they appear to have no personal interest in the assets and are apparently not linked to any suggested criminality, the most likely reason for their non-attendance is that they would not be able to provide any sensible answer to the questions that would be asked of them and would be at risk of providing evidence which would actually contradict what the documentary record purports to tell. Their evidence would be of little weight anyway given it is not factual, but argument and their assertions based on documents but not backed up by oral evidence in which it could be tested leads me to conclude their evidence is of little weight.

Devan

[108]Devan filed a statement dealing with documents he had produced which might have fallen into the category of Imerman documents. His statement explains how he set up an email account so that he could assist his father in communicating in a covert fashion whilst he was in prison. The relevant period of time was early 2015 by which time the Husband’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction had been dismissed in July 2014 and the confiscation proceedings would have been progressing. He goes on to explain how the Husband drafted letters for Rekha Yadav to send to the CPS claiming an interest in Raj Classic, 88 Sydney Street and Castlegrove and sets of instructions as to steps that needed to be taken to preserve assets mainly. These documents were both the Husband’s and Devan’s and the evidence of Devan was clearly admissible, and the Husband conceded the documents were not Imerman material. The contents of the documents are contained in the Chronology. Their clear effect is that the Husband was seeking to persuade Rekha Yadav to lay claim to those assets in the confiscation proceedings so that they would be removed from the list of his realisable assets and to preserve them for the future. The Husband did not seek to call Devan to give evidence. Whilst I accept that a possible reason for not wishing to have his son give evidence might have been to save him the pain and stress of doing so, or indeed to save the Husband himself the pain of asking his own son questions which suggested he was lying I think the more likely reason is that the Husband had no effective challenge to that evidence and the suggestion that it was untrue and fabricated by Devan simply untenable. I accept Devan’s written evidence on the documents produced and his interpretation of them at face value.

Mr Wren

[109]Mr Wren is a financial investigator employed by the National Crime Agency. He was the lead investigator in one of the linked confiscation cases and had only come to the Gohil confiscation order case in July 2023. He was therefore not steeped in knowledge of and analysis of the documents but rather was only able to produce them and to provide general observations on generic issues across the confiscation order process. He had provided 4 statements: i) 1B-82 ii) 1B-366 iii) 1C-148 iv) Unbundled with OW4

[110]Although he was called and gave some oral evidence this was limited in its ambit given his role. The Husband found this frustrating although his questions of Mr Wren substantially sought his analysis of what the extensive documentation demonstrated or did not demonstrate, similar to his approach with the Wife. As that analysis was equally capable of being undertaken in submissions, this did not present much of an obstacle. Some of the documentation that was produced by Mr Wren is referred to in the Chronology. Mr Wren did confirm that very extensive investigations had been undertaken into the Husband’s finances, including searches of Arlingtons Sharmas and of electronic devices, but he would not – rightly so in my view – agree with the Husband’s proposition that if there had been anything hidden it would have been discovered. Both Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati had said that all the bank statements for their accounts were held by Arlingtons Sharmas in England which would have suggested that the Parabola/Miramar Bank Pictet, Schroders, Julius Baer and other accounts held in Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong would all have been secured when Arlingtons Sharmas or the Husband’s home was searched which self-evidently it was not. He also was unable to agree that the international banking check system would have identified all material that might have been relevant to the Husband’s assets. Mr Wren sets out in his first statement the basis of the Crown’s case against the Husband in the Confiscation Order and confirmed that the full amount of £27,967,337.48 remained outstanding together with interest which accrues at 8% per annum. By the end of this hearing a date for the hearing of the Husband’s renewed application for PTA against the confiscation order had been set for 27 June 2025. He confirmed that the applications by the sixth seventh and eighth respondents were deemed inadmissible by the Court of Appeal. The following are some salient features of his evidence: i) HHJ Tomlinson did not find that the Husband had additional unidentified or hidden assets. ii) The judge applied statutory assumptions in section 10 POCA in finding that property transferred to and held by the Husband had been obtained as a result of his general criminal conduct. The relevance of this is that ‘taint’ is not necessarily based on a conclusion on the evidence that particular assets were the proceeds of specific identified crime. iii) Documents seized during the execution of a search warrant at Arlingtons Sharmas’ offices included handwritten documents found in a black folder on the Husband’s desk on 7 November 2007. iv) The evidence was not based on the work of DS McDonald; the analysis was re-done by a team of 15 in the NCA after allegations were made against him although no proceedings were taken against him. v) The Husband’s solicitors served a section 17 POCA statement which accepted that a number of the assets identified were the Husband’s and originated from legitimate activity or were family wealth. vi) Evidence was obtained from HMRC which showed limited drawings from Arlingtons Sharmas and modest declared income in the UK. Year Partnership Profit/[Loss] £ 1996-7 45623 1997-8 [43,718] 1998-9 47,723 1999-2000 [7,442] 2000-01 14,919 2001-2 10,009 2002-3 7356 2003-4 2680 2004-5 2345 2005-6 26712 2006-7 4715 2007-8 46322 vii) Mr Wren dealt with each of the assets that the Wife identified in her statement as being available for distribution to her. A summary of this was contained within the table that the Crown relied upon in closing. Some of the material which had been available in the confiscation proceedings was sought at that point subject to consent given by the MLA providers. Evidence was obtained from HMRC relating to Rekha Yadav’s declared income. viii) Merrill Lynch Parabola statements were found in a void in a fireplace in the office of the Husband at Arlingtons Sharmas in 2007.

[111]His second statement produced material which emanated from the United States of America who had given consent to use the MLA material. This included Merrill Lynch documents and affidavits of Mr Chaturvedi which are referred to in the Chronology.

[112]His third statement produced material which had become disclosable following Mauritius consenting to the use of MLA material in the financial remedy case.

[113]In his fourth Statement, he produced MLA material from the Isle of Man.

[114]He confirmed that many MLA requests had been made and there was a considerable logistical exercise that had had to be undertaken to remove non-consent MLA material. Requests to Switzerland for MLA consent had still not been made due to the logistical difficulties and that Switzerland was a tough jurisdiction because it required precision. MLA consent was also not yet given by Singapore or Hong Kong. He refuted the suggestion that the Crown had a financial motive in upholding the Confiscation Order explaining that the usual rule where the NCA would receive part of the funds recovered did not apply in this case as the funds would be remitted to Nigeria.

Other Significant Individuals

[115]Rekha Yadav. She did not respond to the Confiscation Order direction for her to make disclosure pursuant to S.18 POCA and did not participate in the confiscation order proceedings. Although there were periods when it appeared she might engage in the financial remedy proceedings ultimately she did not do so and orders were made by Mostyn J on 4 May 2017 which provided for her to apply to intervene and to be debarred from asserting any beneficial interest in 88 Sydney Street contrary to that found. Sunfor and Castlegrove were subsequently joined as intervenors and although it is still said (by some) that Rekha Yadav is the ultimate beneficial owner of Castlegrove and 88 Sydney Street she has played no part in these proceedings. The assets which she is said to be (or was said to be) the beneficial owner of are: i) Raj Classic: £793,576 ii) 88 Sydney Street: £3.25m iii) 88 Sydney Street rent held by Foxtons: £15,455 iv) Sunfor Schroders: £33,433 v) Sunfor Bank of Mauritius (88 Sydney Street rent) £279,573 vi) Castlegrove, Julius Baer: £3,085,206 Given the total value of these assets (most values dating back several years) is in the region of £7.4m her non-engagement is surprising. The Husband says he cannot say why she is not engaging. The documents record that Ms Yadav transferred her shareholding in Castlegrove to the Third Respondent in 2019.

[116]The Husband has produced a body of documentation from ECS which appear to confirm that Rekha Yadav was the owner of Castlegrove [i.e. BG3-170] and which contains the document purportedly from ECS which directly contradicts a document dated the same day which is contained within the Isle of Man MLA consent material. Both documents are dated 19 July 2004 and one says the Husband confirmed that he was the beneficial owner and it was used for invoicing for the fund management in respect of various clients [1C-62] and the other [BG3-171] says the Husband confirmed Mrs Yadav was the beneficial owner. In the world of offshore entities, I suppose it is conceivable that both could have been genuine as the Husband could have ‘given’ Castlegrove to his sister a few minutes after the conversation in which he confirmed he was the beneficial owner but the provenance, appearance and apparent inconsistency suggests the more likely explanation is that the document identifying Ms Yadav as the owner is false and that she was a front for the Husband – possibly a willing front but possibly with her identity being used to suit the Husband’s purposes ; he certifying her documents and he having an unlimited power of attorney for Castlegrove [BG3-179/1C-64].

[117]The evidence of Devan Gohil also tends to confirm that Rekha Yadav was not the true beneficial owner of the primary assets; Raj Classic, 88 Sydney Street and Castlegrove but rather that the Husband used her to assist him in administration rather than she operating as a free agent in terms of investing herself or in providing fund management advice. Her advice on the operation of Fazmac in 2001 and the services the Husband was asking her to perform in January 2015, all support the conclusion that whilst a capable individual, she was not on a par with the Husband but rather was acting in a subsidiary capacity as his agent. The suggestion that Rekha Yadav was providing a parallel service to the departments of Schroders etc on fund management advise - the discussions with UBP over the losses sustained show that the banks were doing the advising - is improbable. Devan says that Rekha Yadav had detached herself from the Husband and lived in India in fear of arrest because of her involvement with the Husband and his assets; a realistic fear. Sima Sud’s email identifying that Rekha Yadav deserved 10 Rolexes for all she had done for him also supports the conclusion she was his agent. The content of that letter also suggests that the Husband had a power over his sisters and indeed within the family which the deceased father also infers and that he was able to manipulate them to his ends.

[118]Her HMRC documents confirm modest income when in this country. From 1996-98 she worked with Associated Newspapers and earned a maximum of £18,094. She was then not recorded as earning anything from 1998-2001, a modest sum for Blue Arrow in 2002/3, nothing in 2003-05 and then working for Crown Staff Bureau or the Health Protection Agency from 2005-2010 earning a maximum of £29,672. HMRC then held no employment record for her and this might align with the time when Devan says that she left to reside in India. Nothing in those records suggest that she was a high achiever or high earner in the way that the Husband’s evidence would suggest she must have been. It is of course possible that during the late 90s and early 2000s she was indeed exercising entrepreneurial skills offshore generating the significant sums the Husband suggests she was. What is hard to understand though is that she has never then sought to assert that in any active way still less fight for the supposed fruits of those labours.

[119]No explanation has been given by Rekha Yadav for her non-engagement in the proceedings. The Husband suggests that she has been mentally unwell and hence her transfer of Castlegrove to the third respondent; apparently for no consideration. Given the very significant sums involved and the HMRC records of her modest earnings in recent years and the totality of the evidence which supports her acting as the Husband’s agent, it seems a reasonable inference to draw that she does not regard herself as being the beneficial owner of any of the assets which the Husband says are hers. The totality of the evidence would support the conclusion that she had never been in a position to earn such significant funds that would have enabled her to acquire such assets.

The Law

[120]Fortunately, there is relatively little dispute between the parties about the legal framework which should be applied. In so far as there are disputes, they relate more to the interface between the confiscation order regime and the financial remedy regime. The Wife, the Husband and the CPS have all referred extensively to the statutory framework and to the case-law which they rely on in support of their cases but given in the main it is not in dispute I do not consider it appropriate to set out the law in detail but shall attempt to summarise the main principles I am applying in the various fields.

Fact Finding

[121]The principal focus of this hearing has been the determination of the factual foundations upon which the evaluation of the Wife’s application for financial remedies rests. I have applied the following framework. i) The burden of proof lies upon the party seeking to establish a fact. If the Wife asserts that the Husband had an asset in 2002-4, or that a current asset represents what was a matrimonial asset or that the Husband had failed to disclose assets in 2002-4 or now it is for her to establish that fact. If the CPS seek to establish that an asset of the Husband’s is the proceeds of crime it is for the CPS to establish that fact. ii) The standard of proof is the simple balance of probabilities. This standard applies to all facts including whether an asset represents the proceeds of crime. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred iii) In the determination of some questions of fact the principle of res judicata may apply. a) The strict conditions for the application of the principle as outlined in DSV-Silo-und Verwaltungsgessellschaft mbh-v-Sennar

[1985] 1 WLR 490

will not apply as the parties in this case were not the same as in the confiscation proceedings; the Wife not being a party although the CPS, the Husband, Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati, Castlegrove and Sunfor were. b) In financial remedy proceedings the court will usually act upon determinations of beneficial ownership of assets where normal property law principles have been applied. c) The provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (s.10A) gave HHJ Tomlinson the opportunity to determine the beneficial ownership of assets held or claimed by third parties and that was determined on normal property law principles. Determinations were made which are on the face of them binding on the Third Respondent, Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati, Castlegrove and Sunfor. POCA s.31(4)-(8) and s.51 preclude an appeal against that determination where an application for an enforcement receiver is anticipated but permit third parties to make further representations in a s.50 POCA receivership application if there would be a serious risk of injustice to the person if they were bound by the confiscation order determination. d) In this case, the determinations of HHJ Tomlinson in the Confiscation Order may bind parties in these proceedings but in different ways and in different combinations. e) The determination of the beneficial ownership of assets would be binding on the CPS and the Husband but not on the Wife. That would mean the Husband could not advance a case that he was not the beneficial owner of assets that HHJ Tomlinson had found he was the beneficial owner of nor that they were not the proceeds of crime. The Husband could advance a case that assets did not exist during the marriage and that it was for the Wife to prove they did. f) The Wife however could advance a case that an asset was not the proceeds of crime, including a case that it was acquired using assets of the marriage. g) The determination of beneficial ownership of assets would be binding as between the CPS and the third parties but in the context of them not having any appeal but only a right to apply to make representations in receivership proceedings. Within these proceedings, the third parties would not be bound but would be able to advance a case that despite those determinations the court should conclude they were the beneficial owners. Given the extensive investigation undertaken by HHJ Tomlinson, it seems that the proper approach would be to take his findings as a starting point but to permit the third parties the opportunity to establish a contrary case. Were the issue to come down to who the burden lay upon I think the legal burden would lie upon the Wife to prove on balance that an asset held in the name of a third party was not their property, although in the context of an evidence rich case such as this, that seems unlikely to arise. Although technically bound by the determinations, the Husband would be able to adduce evidence that could support the third-party interests. h) The net effect of the decision of HHJ Tomlinson given the various combinations is that it is of considerable evidential value rather than strictly binding upon me. iv) In reaching conclusions, all the admissible evidence must be taken into account and a non-compartmentalised panoramic evaluation undertaken. a) Some of the MLA material is inadmissible because the consent of the providing authority has not been forthcoming. That has been identified and is not relied upon. b) Conclusions reached by HHJ Tomlinson which have taken into account MLA material may be relied upon as they form part of a judgment which has been delivered in open court. c) The court may draw inferences from the evidence where it is appropriate to do so. The court should not speculate. The dividing line between legitimate inference and illegitimate speculation is not a bright line. v) The court will take account of the credibility of a witness. The court should exercise some care in drawing conclusions from the demeanour of a witness in giving their evidence. vi) Where a party lies, the court should not treat the lie alone as proof of the case against them as lies may be told for many reasons, but the court may rely on a lie where it is deliberate, relates to a material matter and is motivated by a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth. vii) The court should not infer guilt on other matters simply because a party has been found guilty of particular crimes. viii) The court should be alert to the danger of placing too much weight on inconsistencies which may emerge from the giving of multiple accounts over time. That is a particularly significant feature in this case given the time that has elapsed since the events in spotlight and how often the parties have recorded evidence. ix) I bear in mind the observations of Leggatt J in the Gestmin case

[2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)

as to the fallibility of human recollection. x) The court should give evidence the weight it considers appropriate: Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence)

[2013] EWCA Civ 1374

and where hearsay goes to a central issue, the court may well require the maker of the hearsay statement to attend to give oral evidence. FPR 22.2 provides that the general rule is a witness will give oral evidence. xi) The court may draw inferences from a parties failure to give evidence. The court must take account of all the circumstances and determine what inference it is appropriate to drawn.: Wiszniewski v. Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR P324; Re K

[2020] EWHC 2502 (Fam)

Financial Remedy principles

[122]In exercising the court’s powers when making financial remedies orders following divorce proceedings, the starting point is s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

(a) to (h):

“(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire; (b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; (c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage; (d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage; (e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage; (f) the contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family; (g) the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it; (h) … the value to each of the parties to the marriage of any benefit which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.”

[123]The current approach is governed by two decisions of the House of Lords in White v White

[2001] 1 AC 596

(hereafter “White”) and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane

[2006] 1 FLR 1186

(hereafter “Miller”). It is well established that the court award in cases where the parties resources exceed their needs that the award will be the higher of that reached by the application of the sharing principle and that reached by application of the need principle. Lord Nicholls in White v White

[2001] AC 596

at page 605:

“there is one principle of universal application which can be stated with confidence. In seeking to achieve a fair outcome, there is no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles. …. [W]hatever the division of labour chosen by the husband and wife, or forced upon them by circumstances, fairness requires that this should not prejudice or advantage either party when considering paragraph (f), relating to the parties’ contributions. This is implicit in the very language of paragraph (f): ‘the contributions which each … has made or is likely … to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family’. If, in their different spheres, each contributed equally to the family, then in principle it matters not which of them earned the money and built up the assets. There should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer.”

[124]For that reason, Lord Nicholls recommended that, when a judge reached the preliminary view that one party should receive a bigger share of the assets than the other, “before reaching a firm conclusion and making an order along these lines, a judge will always be well advised to check his tentative views against the yardstick of equality of division.”

[125]In Miller, Lord Nicholls developed the analysis of fairness as follows (at paragraphs 9 to 16):

“9. The starting point is surely not controversial. In the search for a fair outcome it is pertinent to have in mind that fairness generates obligations as well as rights. The financial provision made on divorce by one party for the other, still typically the wife, is not in the nature of largesse. It is not a case of ‘taking away’ from one party and ‘giving’ to the other property which ‘belongs’ to the former. The claimant is not a supplicant. Each party to a marriage is entitled to a fair share of the available property. The search is always for what are the requirements of fairness in the particular case. 10. What, then, in principle, are these requirements? The statute provides that first consideration shall be given to the welfare of the children of the marriage …. Beyond this several elements, or strands are readily discernible. The first is financial needs …. 11. This element of fairness reflects the fact that to a greater or lesser extent every relationship of marriage gives rise to a relationship of interdependence. The parties share the roles of money-earner, home-maker and child-carer. Mutual dependence begets mutual obligations of support …. 12. In most cases the search for fairness largely begins and ends at this stage. In most cases the available assets are insufficient to provide adequately for the needs of two homes. The court seeks to stretch modest finite resources so far as possible to meet the parties’ needs …. 13. Another strand, recognised more explicitly now than formerly, is compensation. This is aimed at redressing any significant prospective economic disparity between the parties arising from the way they conducted their marriage…. …. 16. A third strand is sharing. This ‘equal sharing’ principle derives from the basic concept of equality permeating a marriage as understood today. Marriage, it is often said, is a partnership of equals. …. The parties commit themselves to sharing their lives. They live and work together. When their partnership ends, each is entitled to an equal share of the assets of the partnership, unless there is a good reason to the contrary. Fairness requires no less. But I emphasise the qualifying phrase: ‘unless there is good reason to the contrary’. The yardstick of equality is to be applied as an aid, not a rule.”

[126]The speeches of the House of Lords in White and Miller make clear that contributions come in all shapes and sizes. In some marriages, contributions may be very clearly delineated between the money earner and the homemaker, but they are treated equally. In many, the dividing lines will be far more blurred, with each party contributing to the various needs of the family in a wide variety of different ways. Ultimately, a marriage is about a partnership in which usually both will contribute in the way in which they are able. Thus, contributions almost inevitably have to be evaluated in the context of the marriage that existed.

[127]These principles are well summarised by Lord Wilson in Scatliffe (British Virgin Islands)

[2016] UKPC 36

where he said at [25]:

“in an ordinary case the proper approach is to apply the sharing principle to the matrimonial property and then to ask whether in the light of all the matters specified in section [25 MCA] and of its concluding words, the result of so doing represents an appropriate overall disposal. In particular it should ask whether the principles of need and/or of compensation best explained in the speech of Lady Hale in the Miller case at paragraphs 137 to 144, require additional adjustment in the form of transfer to one party or further property, even of non-matrimonial property, held by the other.”

[128]The assessment of need is a discretionary matter. Mostyn J said in FF v KF

[2017] EWHC 1093

at [18]: "The main drivers in the discretionary exercise are the scale of the payer's wealth, the length of the marriage, the applicant's age and health, and the standard of living, although the latter factor cannot be allowed to dominate the exercise".

[129]Conduct may fall to be weighed in the discretionary evaluation in a variety of circumstances; i) Gross and obvious personal misconduct which has financial consequences; ii) wanton or reckless dissipation of assets; iii) litigation misconduct; iv) the drawing of inferences as to the existence of assets.

[130]In determining what the assets of the marriage were and thus what should be shared or is available to meet a party’s needs, the usual rules of evidence as to findings of fact apply: Hart v Hart

[2017] EWCA Civ 1306

. This applies to what the assets were at the time the marriage ended in 2002 and whether assets acquired subsequently were in fact a later manifestation of an earlier asset.

[131]In considering the consequences of non-disclosure and the extent of undisclosed assets, the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Moher v Moher

[2019] EWCA Civ 1482

is of assistance: 87.(i) It is clearly appropriate that generally, as required by section 25, the court should seek to determine the extent of the financial resources of the non-disclosing party; 88.

(ii) When undertaking this task the court will, obviously, be entitled to draw such adverse inferences as are justified having regard to the nature and extent of the party’s failure to engage properly with the proceedings. However, this does not require the court to engage in a disproportionate enquiry. Nor, as Lord Sumption said, should the court “engage in pure speculation”. As Otton LJ said in Baker v Baker, inferences must be “properly drawn and reasonable”. This was reiterated by Lady Hale in Prest v Petrodel, at [85]: “… the court is entitled to draw such inferences as can properly be drawn from all the available material, including what has been disclosed, judicial experience of what is likely to be being concealed and the inherent probabilities, in deciding what the facts are.” 89.

(iii) This does not mean, contrary to Mr Molyneux’s submission, that the court is required to make a specific determination either as to a figure or a bracket. There will be cases where this exercise will not be possible because, the manner in which a party has failed to comply with their disclosure obligations, means that the court is “unable to quantify the extent of his undisclosed resources”, to repeat what Wilson LJ said in Behzadi v Behzadi. 90.

(iv) How does this fit within the application of the principles of need and sharing? The answer, in my view, is that, when faced with uncertainty consequent on one party’s non-disclosure and when considering what Lady Hale and Lord Sumption called “the inherent probabilities” the court is entitled, in appropriate cases, to infer that the resources are sufficient or are such that the proposed award does represent a fair outcome. This is, effectively, what Munby J did in both Al-Khatib v Masry and Ben Hashem v Al Shayif and, in my view, it is a legitimate approach. In that respect I would not endorse what Mostyn J said in NG v SG at [16(vii)].

[132]In determining what the net assets are, the court should take account of tax liabilities. The court should not assume all offshore assets acquired would be subject to UK taxes. Assets brought onshore would likely be subject to UK tax.

Confiscation Order principles

[133]The POCA scheme requires the court to proceed in a particular way. This includes under s.6(4): i) Deciding whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle ii) If he does, decide whether he has benefited from his general criminal conduct iii) If he does not, decide whether he has benefited from his particular criminal conduct.

[134]A criminal lifestyle can be found if particular conditions are satisfied. In this case, HHJ Tomlinson concluded they were and thus the general criminal conduct assumptions were applicable, and they would apply during the six year period prior to the start of the criminal proceedings.

[135]The assumptions under s.10 POCA include: i) That any property transferred to the defendant was obtained as a result of his general criminal conduct; ii) That any property held by the defendant was obtained by him as a result of his general criminal conduct; iii) That any expenditure incurred by the defendant was met from property obtained by him as a result of his general criminal conduct

[136]In R v Ginwalla

[2005] EWCA Crim 3553

at [20], the court said that it will generally resist engaging in a detailed tracing exercise to separate tainted payments and assets from those that are legitimate. That is not say it won’t entertain a broad assessment tour to infer what the likely value of those assets.

[137]In determining third party property interests, the courts should apply the same property law principles as in any other civil proceedings: R-v-Ruto (2022) 2 Cr App R (S) .

Financial Remedy/Confiscation order interplay

[138]In Re MCA

[2003] 1 FLR 164

the Court of Appeal held:

“[43] In my judgment, there is nothing in the provisions of either the MCA 1973 or the DTA 1994 which requires the court to hold that either statute takes priority over the other when the provisions of each are invoked in relation to the same property. Both statutes confer discretion on the court, which the court may or may not choose to exercise, to make orders. The terms of those orders will depend on the facts of the individual case. Each statute gives the court mandatory guidance as to how the powers are to be exercised. Section 25 of the MCA 1973 requires the court to take into account all the circumstances of the case and, in particular , the various factors set out in s25(2) when deciding whether, and if so in what manner, to exercise its powers (per Schiemann LJ).”

[139]Factors which relate to the criminal conduct and which will inﬂuence the exercise of the court’s discretion when hearing the ﬁnancial remedy application include: i) Whether the Wife is “innocent” i.e. she neither participated nor knew of the Husband’s criminal conduct (in Re MCA, Schiemann LJ regarded this of “critical importance”). ii) Whether the assets are tainted by crime – and in this respect it is important to determine whether they are as a determination of fact the product of criminal activity or they are deemed such by an assumption operating against the defendant. iii) The public interest in criminals being deprived of the proceeds of crime and a confiscation order being met.

[140]In Solomons v Solomons

[2007] EWHC 1362

Munby J makes clear that the assumptions in the Proceeds of Crime legislation do not apply in family proceedings. In relation to conclusions reached in confiscation proceedings a distinction can be drawn between: i) A finding based on an assessment of the evidence. Such a finding will carry considerable weight even where challenged by the Wife. ii) A conclusion (finding) reached by the application of statutory assumptions. Such a finding may carry significantly less weight because the range of assumptions and their nature could, in particular where money laundering is involved lead to a conclusion that a defendant had benefited to the full extent of monies they had laundered when the evidence pointed to the laundered funds having only passed through their hands with none being retained by them.

[141]In relation to tainted assets at para 26 in CPS v Richards & Richards

[2006] EWCA Civ 849

Thorpe LJ said:

“where assets are tainted and subject to confiscation they should ordinarily, as a matter of justice and public policy, not be distributed. That is not to say that the court is deprived of jurisdiction under the 1973 Act nor to say that no circumstances could exist in which an order would be justified; an example of a seriously disabled child living in specially adapted accommodation was mooted in argument.”

[142]Where the Crown Court considers that the family court’s award has reduced the realisable assets of the Husband this may lead to a reduction in the Confiscation Order. Where the court considers that a party has further undisclosed assets this may not be appropriate.

The Parties’ Cases and Submissions

[143]Each of the parties, save Odessa Management , filed written documents at the commencement and/or the conclusion of the case and for several of the Respondents they have also set out their arguments in their witness statements. In this section, I shall only seek to summarise the essential points as they appeared to me or which the parties laid particular emphasis on.

[144]The Wife’s case was set out in her Skeleton Argument at the commencement of the case, supplemented by her written closing note on the law and in Mr Sirikanda’s oral submissions. i) The heart of the Wife’s case is that she can establish that in April 2002 there was matrimonial capital worth £10 million which applying simple indexation would be valued at something over £18 million in 2025. She submits that the Husband’s egregious prolonged and extensive non-disclosure and the passage of 23 years presents a unique challenge in establishing that the matrimonial capital can now be located in the £27.9 million realisable assets established to be owned by the Husband within the confiscation order proceedings. However, she submits that the court is entitled to and must undertake a broad assessment and that the inability of the CPS to prove that all of those realisable assets are the proceeds of crime should lead the court to conclude that the list of assets she identifies as having matrimonial roots are not tainted and should thus be shared. The valuation of those assets for the purposes of the Confiscation Order was £15,810,981.41. Her case is that the Husband has further undisclosed assets and that whilst the starting point would be an equal division, the Wife submits that the Husband’s undisclosed assets, his conduct in the form of his extensive non-disclosure amounting to prolonged litigation misconduct and the impact on the Wife of the 23-year fight should lead to an adjustment in her favour to reflect his conduct and to compensate her for the impact on her – not least on her earning capacity. She seeks a property adjustment order in respect of Sunfor and its underlying assets which include 88 Sydney Street and a lump sum in respect of the balance secured over the other funds which the court identifies as untainted together with an undertaking that she will not enforce the charge against 50% of the funds recovered by the CPS so that in practice she will receive 50p for each £1 recovered by the CPS until her lump sum is paid in full. In the event that the court’s conclusions on the matrimonial assets or their current form did not reach that level the Wife contends that her needs would require a capital award of around £3.35m for housing and a Duxbury fund of £2.667m making a total award of £6.017m. ii) Computation of the Husband’s assets now should be based on the Confiscation Order conclusions as to beneficial ownership. a) Wife relies on the findings of HHJ Tomlinson as to beneficial ownership recorded in his order and contends, they are res judicata against the Husband. b) The Husband’s beneficial ownership was determined by application of normal property principles rather than assumptions. c) In respect of the other respondents, the Wife accepts that the lack of availability of an appeal provides an exception to issue estoppel and they can advance their cases. In respect of each of them, she submits i) Kamla Gohil, the Third Respondent, has not attended to advance any positive case. ii) Odessa, the Fourth Respondent, is defunct. iii) Castlegrove and Sunfor have played no active part as they have not attended to give evidence and have only submitted written evidence and documentary submissions. The court should reject their case. iv) Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati have played an active role and can advance their case. However, the burden of proof lies with them to establish that they are the true beneficial owners. The findings of HHJ Tomlinson mean that the burden must lie on them to prove that those conclusions are wrong, and they are the beneficial owners. They have not met that burden because:(a) All of the documents they have produced [1B-828] relate to the setting up and operation of the Parabola/Miramar entities and associated bank accounts. They have produced nothing which addresses the origin of the funds which underpinned HHJ Tomlinson’s findings.

(b) Their statements in these proceedings amount to little more than exhibiting their confiscation order statements. They have not sought to provide additional evidence to deal with the deficiencies identified. The Husband has produced evidence which would (if they are right) have been available to them but they did not.

(d) There are a series of significant questions about the origins of the funds and their disengagement from the Husband which cannot be answered. d) The Wife maintains that the evidence demonstrates the Husband likely has further undisclosed assets which have funded his lifestyle since separation and are not identified in the restraint order. iii) The Wife’s Financial Position Now. This is as per her Form E. iv) The Husband’s Financial Position Now. He sets out his finances in his Form E but the reality is as per HHJ Tomlinson’s findings in terms of what was identified. HHJ Tomlinson did not deal with the issue of non-disclosure or hidden assets. v) Computation of the matrimonial assets in 2002. The Wife submits this will inevitably be a broad assessment based on the guidance in Hart. She says the following assets can be identified a) Castlegrove Group i) The Husband’s own notes 1B-258 identify it as part of an ‘INVISIBLE’ set of assets. Some can be identified – others such as SOC PEM remain unexplained. ii) Castlegrove was in existence in 2002 (its predecessor was in existence from 1999). iii) 1C-71 – diagrams drawn up by its own administrators showing the Husband as the final economic beneficiary. iv) 1C-90/116 – shows the payment of the Husband’s expenses from Castlegrove. v) 1C-149 shows that in July 2004 Castlegrove’s account with Julius Baer contained $3.298m and HHJ Tomlinson identified it held many other accounts. vi) The purchase of 88 Sydney Street in October 2004 must derive from pre-2002 capital. There is no explanation as to how Castlegrove accrued assets between April 2002 and October 2004. vii) The transfers of the shareholding in Castlegrove for no consideration support the conclusion it was the Husband’s then and any others who held the shares were simply his nominees. b) Hempton: i) The Wife recalls seeing $2m in a Hempton account in the Hildebrand material which was not produced. ii) The Husband did not comply with the disclosure order made by Moylan J. iii) The payment made by the Husband’s father to Hempton is inconsistent with that being beneficially owned by Mr Zvogbo. c) Parabola/Miramar. i) The Merrill Lynch account is in a different category to the BNP/UBP/Pictet and Schroders accounts. The bank statements were hidden. ii) In 2002 this account had $2m in it. The Husband used it for his own expenses. iii) The documents identified the Husband as the owner. The source of the funds for it are not clearly evidenced as emanating from Mr Shamutete contrary to what they contend. iv) Mr Chaturvedi in his interview with police and his affidavit gives an account which makes clear he was told and considered the Husband to be the true beneficial owner. d) Lombard Odier i) The email from Brad Walmsley clearly identifies the Husband establishing an account to hold his personal portfolio with Lombard Odier ii) The bankers’ draft to pay the Husband’s father is drawn on Lombard Odier. iii) There is reference in the Gohil Funds document [2-291] which support a Lombard Odier account belonging to the Husband. iv) There is evidence in the logs of a link between Castlegrove and Lombard Odier. v) The Wife recalls seeing Lombard Odier statements in the Hildebrand material which were not then disclosed. vi) The disclosure to NCIS made by the Husband’s sisters husband supports the Husband holding an account in the name of his two sisters at Lombard Odier with $4m in it. [the evidence of the letters written by Sima Sud in 2005 would also tend to support this being her understanding]. e) Imxal Discretionary Trust i) The Husband’s own notes support its existence. ii) The TR1 [2-313] confirms its existence as does the evidence of the Husband’s father. f) The totality of the funds from these assets are a minimum of £10m and that does not include any funds in Imxal or what might be in Lombard Odier. In today’s money that equates to £18m which is 65% of the realisable assets identified by the Confiscation Order. vi) The scale of asset derivation 2002-2025. What part of the current asset base can be said to derive from the pre-2002 assets? Again, the court’s assessment will have to be broad given the Husband’s non-disclosure and the limited documentary evidence. Certainly, precise tracing is neither necessary nor desirable, but the Wife can point to clear continuities or asset threads in 88 Sydney Street, Castlegrove funds and assets purchased with them including Raj Classic, and Slavonian Finance which derives from Odessa and Merrill Lynch. Other assets such as the Wellwick, Willard, Zetland and Sloane Capital accounts appear to derive from Parabola/Miramar assets which trace back to 1999. vii) Taint. There are two aspects to this: a) What pre-2002 assets are tainted and how much of the £27.8m is tainted? i) The CPS have not sought to undertake anything like the exercise that was undertaken in SOCA-v-Namli

[2013] EWHC 1200 (QB)

where the sums were less than we are concerned with. It is not likely related to resourcing or to inadmissibility of evidence but because they cannot establish, they were acquired by criminal conduct to the necessary standard. ii) There is an obvious explanation for the Husband’s dealing with them which relates to hiding them from the Wife. He was having an affair in 2000. iii) The evidence establishes the Husband was engaged in commercial activity in his own right [1B-1230]. b) The Husband’s tax status would have entitled him to keep funds offshore. The court should not assume all his assets are tainted by tax evasion. viii) Needs. If the court is looking at needs, they should be generously assessed, and her housing and income needs reflect that. In the final analysis any award must, as a bare minimum, meet the wife’s needs for housing and lifetime income. The wife has endured 20+ years of financial hardship (insecure precarious housing combined with limited income (alleviated only by two capital injections). Her needs must be met by a housing fund and a Duxbury fund. ix) Distribution. How is the Wife’s sharing claim properly to be satisfied? The Court should note the Wife’s case is that the £27m is not the limit of the Husband’s current wealth. He has access to other unidentified resources and assets which enable him to continue to fund his lifestyle. The wife has identified £15.8m of assets with a matrimonial thread/linkage. Her primary case is the Court should make property adjustment orders in her favour in respect these assets. x) Conduct. The Husband’s conduct is unprecedented involving two decades of dishonesty in these proceedings and his behaviour amounts to psychological abuse. The court should err on the Wife’s side in determining what share of the assets she should get and in assessing her needs. She has made a full contribution and should be compensated for the impact on her of the last two decades. xi) Assets Claimed from the Confiscation Order realisable assets. The only change in the course of the hearing to the assets the Wife said represented the current location of matrimonial assets was the addition of the Zetland account into which some BNP/UBP/Pictet assets flowed. The table below sets out those assets. Property at Raj Classic, Flat No ‘B’ Wing 1407 and 1408, Yaris Road, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai, India £793,576.55 Property at 88 Sydney Street, London, SW3, held in the name of Sunfor Commercial Inc £3,250,000.00 Rent from the Property at 88 Sydney Street, held by Foxtons £15,455.19 Sunfor Commercial Inc – Schroders Bank Account 602371 £33,433.00 Sunfor Commercial Inc – Bank of Mauritius Accounts holding rent from the Property at 88 Sydney Street £279,573.20 Castlegrove Inc – Julius Baer Account 255.0821 2120.333.01, 2120.402.01 £3,085,206.98 Wellwick Capital SA – Banque Franck, Galland & Cie Account 429170 20882, 429170 20883, 429170 20884 £382,625.00 Slavonian Finance Corp – Schroders Bank Account 6059660004 £180,348.00 Bilt Finance (BVI) – Hinduja Bank Account 0010858 001.000.840 £2,847,298.49 Parabola International Corp – Merrill Lynch Account 17P-07426 £1,521,341.80 Willard Investments Ltd – Julius Baer Account 0303.2846 £1,513,858.76 Sloane Capital Limited – Bank Pictet & Cie Account 888586 (£Sterling and US$ sub-accounts) £1,897,014.44 £11,250.00 Zetland Financial Group Fiduciary Account 102-397296-274 £2,008,332.84 total £17,819,9313.41 xii) Implementation. The Wife seeks a property adjustment order for Sunfor which will enable her to acquire 88 Sydney Street and the associated bank accounts. She seeks a lump sum in respect of the remainder of her share.

[145]The Husband’s position broadly remained the same over the course of hearing having been set out in his Opening Note and continuing in his Closing Note and separate cross-referenced document. He sought in these to refer to BG4 which I had not given permission to rely on. He is a Litigant in Person albeit a lawyer and his documents and advocacy demonstrate that he is highly intelligent, has acquired extensive knowledge of the law in the fields of financial remedy and criminal confiscation as well as in evidence and that he is well able to develop and present a case. Combined with his expertise in his own legal field of commercial law in particular offshore structures and his ‘nose’ for a deal he could have been a formidable lawyer. This is all severely compromised in this case by his profound dishonesty combined with his intense hostility to the Wife. The following summary contains the essence of his response to the Wife’s claim in which his central proposition is that he made full disclosure in 2002-4 and that the provision made by the Consent order of April 2004 remains the proper outcome. i) The Wife’s claim to nearly £16m in assets is based on assertions of a luxury lifestyle and significant material non-disclosure which he has demonstrated are baseless, excessive and conclusively refuted by evidence, her conduct and the law. Although the decision of the Supreme Court was to permit re-opening of the Consent Order the court should now – with more extensive evidence properly tested - determine that in fact there was no non-disclosure. As fraud or non-disclosure has not been proved she should not be allowed a second bite of the cherry. ii) The applicant’s case presents a fundamental contradiction: she claims to have no knowledge of marital assets while simultaneously alleging the husband concealed them. The access that the Wife has had to the husband’s laptop is pivotal as she had unparalleled access to all of his financial documentation being able to examination over 17,463 files. Since then, she has had comprehensive contemporary documentary evidence, material from the Arlingtons Sharmas files and further disclosure. She has not engaged substantively with this evidence or presented evidence in support of her assertions. iii) He has been subjected to likely one of the most extensive investigations ever undertaken and nothing has been found to substantiate the Wife’s claims, rather all that has been found supports the Husband’s case. The Financial Investigator in the Confiscation Order confirmed there were no hidden assets. The Imerman material which was not relied on does not support the Wife’s claims. Yet the Wife who admits she knows nothing about their finances maintained her assertion that the Husband had not disclosed assets. iv) The affidavit of the Husband’s father was orchestrated by the Wife – he would not have understood its content and there is no evidence of transmission or translation. Moylan J and the UKSC expressed reservations about it. It has several irregularities including its exhibits. v) The conclusions of the forensic accountant, Julia Walker, do not support the Wife’s claim based on her analysis of the Hildebrand documents of the Husband having an interest in any of the ventures that the Wife claimed. vi) The contents of the documentation in particular BG1 which is uncontested now demonstrate the falsity of the Wife’s claims. The court should rely on documentary evidence rather than witness recollection. vii) The Wife received the lion’s share of the matrimonial assets in 2004 receiving for herself and the children some £434,242 (74%). The 2004 order adequately met her housing and maintenance needs reflecting the true marital reality. The evidence establishes she could have been housed with the funds provided and that she could have acquired an earning capacity. It was her failures to take up housing offers made by the Husband and her own inaction that has led to her current position. She still has an earning capacity which permits a clean break. viii) She bears the burden of proving her entitlement to specific assets. She has produced no evidence connecting any post separation assets to the marriage. Unless there is a clear evidential link, they should not be included as marital assets. Post separation accruals should not be shared. The court should focus on the documentary evidence, not subjective character assessments in determining whether the Wife has proved her case. The court must rely on evidence not conjecture or speculation and should not substitute inference for evidence. ix) The assets which the Wife seeks to claim on based on the 2007 set aside application are identical to those she claimed in 2002. They are/were owned by third parties (see Table in para 32 of his Closing Submissions) and he disclosed their ownership between July 2002 and September 2008, in particular: a) Lombard Odier: Multiple Arlingtons Sharmas clients (including Dr Pemsing and Miramar) b) 88 Sydney Street: Bryan Almquist (I think he must be referring to the position in 2002). c) Hempton: Dr Zvogbo is the owner, and the 88 Sydney Street purchase is documented. d) Merrill Lynch: Edward Shamutete. e) BNP: Edward Shamutete /Urbano Mutati. f) Imxal Discretionary Trust: Dr Zvogbo. g) Brown Shipley: Closed in 2005 (Husband’s). h) Fazmac – liquidated – Edward Shamutete. i) Funds Summary from IMM (18.7.2002) – Arlingtons Sharmas Client x) The assets the Wife now claims have marital sources are conclusively proven not to be so. a) Raj Classic: Castlegrove Inc/KGBFYOC: the evidence shows it was incorporated in December 2002 after separation and acquired by Rekha Yadav in May 2003 and has been funded by her income generation. b) 88 Sydney Street: Castlegrove /KGBFYOC. Castlegrove had a 100% loan enabling the purchase of this property. c) Sunfor Schroders; Castlegrove Julius Baer d) Sunfor: Foxtons/State Bank of Mauritius: Castlegrove/KGBFYOC e) Wellwick Capital: The husband is on record for a pool of investors. f) Slavonian Finance: The husband and the third respondent. g) Bilt Finance: Ajay Hinduja h) Merrill Lynch Parabola: Mr Shamutete i) Willard Investments: Mr Mutati j) Sloane Capital: Mr Shamutete xi) The evidence supports the conclusion that Rekha Yadav and Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati are the beneficial owners of the assets they claim and the documents support the fact that the husband was acting for the latter two as a commercial solicitor. xii) The evidence conclusively establishes Arlingtons Sharmas was a legitimate business conducting legal work. Their field was international commercial practice and the structures used are commonplace not suspicious. xiii) The clear documentary records shows the true nature of events. The other witnesses relied on, in particular Anil Chaturvedi and Prabhdyal Sodhi, are inconsistent and demonstrably unreliable. xiv) The Wife is not a credible witness; she said in 2004 that the husband was worth £5m [BG2-45] but now she says he told her he was worth £10m. She has obviously overstated the standard of living they had as a family. xv) The 11-year marriage was not characterised by opulence as the Wife alleges. The £911.77 monthly spend accurately reflects the standard of living. The Wife’s oral evidence made clear she was exaggerating as she could provide no detail to support her assertions. xvi) The husband’s financial contribution to the family should be properly credited. Her financial contribution was some £10,000 after which she was the homemaker. The husband provided everything for the family, but his business was struggling. xvii) The wife’s needs are exaggerated both in housing and in income. Her claims for the adult children are eye-watering. She has an earning capacity as a solicitor. She has used capital for property purchase to make loans and has failed to disclose capital to the DWP and the Legal Aid Agency. xviii) The court should find the Wife has been guilty of conduct within section 25. She has relentlessly pursued an unjustified case in the face of overwhelming evidence seeking a windfall from post separation assets. It is a vendetta. In addition, her unlawful access to the husband’s lap-top is relevant conduct. The impact of her actions on the husband’s family has been extensive – his sisters’ marriage was disrupted, his mother has faced ongoing demands, his father became estranged from his family. She has brought both the husband’s father and Devan in on her side which is profoundly distressing to the husband. The harm to the family relationships is conduct. xix) The assertion that the husband’s dishonesty amounts to conduct is over-reach. His convictions post-date the separation and are outside the scope of conduct. The Wife in any event said she would not seek tainted assets and now does so. xx) The court should not permit this hearing to become ‘Confiscation order part two’. The CPS should not be involved in this hearing. He said he had been directed to focus on the applicant’s case regarding the marital assets and specifically prior to April 2002 which was neither accurate nor what he had done in the course of the hearing. He maintained that HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment was wrong and in particular submitted that. a) The forensic reports had corroborated his case in demonstrating that the transactions were commercial, with proof of the source of funds and clients. b) That he could make available to me the in excess of 3,500 pages of material which proved this and which he hadn’t brought in. c) That HHJ Tomlinson had not explained in a reasoned analysis why he rejected this, in particular his conclusions as to the third party interests. d) The CPS seek to reverse the burden of proof by asking for innocent explanations. They have been provided with that but refuse to accept it. e) The CPS have a financial interest in the outcome of these proceedings. xxi) The court should determine the husband’s application to vary periodical payments downwards and discharge the orders made for payment of arrears.

[146]Mr Christopher KC filed a Position Statement and made oral closing submissions on behalf of Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati in support of their positions that: Mr Shamutete i) he is the sole beneficial owner of the funds in the Merrill Lynch account in the name of Parabola International Corp; and ii) he is the beneficial owner of so much of the funds in the accounts of Castlegrove Inc and Willard Investment Ltd at Bank Julius Baer as are derived from or represent US$4,403,253 transferred on 11 November 2005 from the account of Parabola at Union Bancaire Privée to bank account number K888156 at Pictet & Cie, Singapore. Mr Mutati iii) Maintains that he is the beneficial owner of so much of the funds in the accounts of Castlegrove Inc and Willard Investment Ltd at Bank Julius Baer as are derived from or represent US$2,006,178.84 transferred on 10 November 2005 from the account of Miramar at UBP to bank account number K888156 at Pictet & Cie, Singapore.

[147]In support of these positions, Mr Christopher made the following essential points. i) He acknowledged that there is no evidence as to why they are not giving evidence and so the court can only proceed on the evidence that it has. He submitted that the fact they had not given evidence should not lead to the inference that the Husband was the owner of the assets they claimed. If there are other explanations which are as likely, then the court could not draw that inference. He submitted that their ages at nearly 80 and 71, the cloud of suggested corruption that might arise were they to give oral evidence about the source of their wealth and the structures they had adopted were as likely explanations as the assets not being theirs but the Husband’s. ii) It was accepted that the weight that would be attributed to their evidence would be limited as it had not been tested in cross-examination and that matters which arose from it had not been tested. iii) He submitted that the Husband’s suggestion that he was giving evidence in support of their case because it was the right thing to do would be the wrong inference to draw because the Husband had his own financial interests to pursue the case. Were his appeal against the Confiscation Order to succeed then the Castlegrove assets, if they are his, would fall to him. iv) The main focus of his submissions was on the documentary evidence which supported the conclusion that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were indeed the true beneficial owners of the assets they claimed. He relied on the documentation which was referred to in the chart tracking the movement of funds from 1999 when Enzo/Parabola/Miramar accounts were first created and their onward movement thereafter. This appears to be the same, or a more recent version of the, chart that His Honour Judge Tomlinson refers to in the confiscation order judgment. In particular he drew my attention to the following: a) The account opening reports [1B-1425-7] and associated documents which are MLA Guernsey material which showed that the banker Mr Mani was under the clear impression that Mr Shamutete was the beneficial owner of the BNP Parabola funds and the minutes of the meeting which record Mr Shamutete’s dissatisfaction with the investment performance and the bank’s failure to act on his request for funds. b) It is highly implausible that this interaction with the bank was all a charade. He was the CEO of Zambia Copper Mines and playing the role of a stooge being outraged at the performance of the funds is improbable. The appearance and content of his communications with the Husband appear to be contemporaneous and are consistent with his position being a real one [BG1-3250]. c) Other documents from 2004 [1B-867] seeking a transfer from UBP Parabola to a UBS Switzerland account also appear genuine. d) A similar trail exists for Mr Mutati with contemporaneous account opening documents [1B-1385] and payment of his credit card. e) Up until the transfer to Pictet and Cie all the evidence points to them being the beneficial owners. They gave instructions to undertake that transfer which they would not have done had they not regarded the funds as their own. f) Mr Christopher poses the rhetorical question of why the Husband would need two stooges in Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati when he could use offshore structures without them and could present himself as the beneficial owner. g) Following the transfer to Pictet and Cie, the documentary evidence continues to support the conclusion that Mr Shamutete continued to regard the funds as his to dispose of [1B-971] in May 2007 and that the Husband acted on his instructions by making transfers to Suresh Gupta and Imani Securities [1B-956]. h) The earlier evidence is inconsistent with the Husband gathering in his own funds at the point of transfer to Pictet and Cie in 2005. It is clear from his own notes that he aspired to greater wealth, was becoming involved in criminality, was using the Parabola Schroders account to launder funds and the change in the identified beneficial owner of the funds transferred to Pictet is consistent with the Husband misusing the funds. v) In respect of the Parabola Merrill Lynch account, it is clear that IMM understood Mr Shamutete to be the beneficial owner of Parabola but from the documents and the evidence of Mr Chaturvedi it appears that the Husband did not tell Merrill Lynch the truth. The documents support the conclusion that Mr Shamutete understood he had a Merrill Lynch account [BG1-3227] as the Husband sent him an account summary which referred to it and specifically the deposit of funds from the sale of 1 Trinity Court – which the Husband mis-stated the amount of. The source of funds was Enzo which Mr Shamutete was the owner of. The evidence shows the Husband not only misled Merrill Lynch but then misled Mr Shamutete and misappropriated funds for his own use including withdrawing cash in Las Vegas. vi) In respect of the Bhadresh Gohil Funds summary [BG1-3270] [2-291] the documentation [BG1-3522- 3526, 3266 etc] supports the conclusion that the Richter Equities, Enzo Limited and Miramar Trading Ltd funds were linked to Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati. The documents relating to professional advisers who liquidated funds to create the sums which were allocated to Enzo by IMM also support the conclusion that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati had funds which went into Enzo and Miramar. vii) Subsequently their actions in instructing solicitors in Singapore and England and in bringing proceedings against the Husband [BG1-3439] again support the conclusion they are the beneficial owners. viii) The burden of proof is on the Wife to show these are not their funds. The evidence shows they were men of considerable wealth and thus they can establish that they, and not the Husband, are the true beneficial owners of the funds they claim.

[148]The submissions made on behalf of the Third Respondent were in essence limited to the Position Statement and the witness statement. The Third Respondent’s position is and was that: i) She relies on the Consent Order of April 2004 in so far as it records concessions as to her ownership of assets. ii) Highlander was purchased by her and the Second Respondent and the Husband had never acquired any beneficial ownership. iii) She is the beneficial owner of £79,000 held in Slavonian Finance that being her 50% of the account. iv) She holds the flat at Raj Classic for her daughter. v) She made no specific reference to the transfer of Castlegrove to her or the relevance of the KGBFYOC Foundation.

[149]Castlegrove/Sunfor filed a Position Statement and a Written Closing statement. The essential points they made were: i) The documents confirm that Castlegrove was established after the marriage ended, was acquired by Rekha Yadav, and that neither the Wife or the Husband have ever held shares, directorships or control. ii) No assets of Castlegrove are rooted in the marriage. They were acquired post 2002. iii) Ms Yadav relinquished ownership on 19 December 2019 and no familial interests persist. iv) They submit that no adverse inference should be drawn against the directors’ non-attendance to give evidence as a prima facie case must exist which gives rise to a reasonable expectation of response and there is no prime facie case which calls for any response in oral evidence. v) The evidence establishes that Castlegrove’s assets are not the product of criminal activity. vi) The sums the Wife received from the Foxtons account pursuant to the earlier orders relating to arrears of maintenance should be restored to Castlegrove.

[150]The Crown Prosecution Service filed a Position Statement at the commencement of the hearing, made closing submissions and provide a helpful tabular summary setting out their position in relation to the evidence relating to acquisition of assets and whether they were tainted by assumption or specific criminal activity. The essential points made by Mr Kinnear KC seem to me as follows: i) The Intervener agrees with the Wife that the assets are the property of the Husband, as found by HHJ Tomlinson. The CPS considers that the position, on all the material available to it, is as set out in the judgments of HHJ Tomlinson, dated 28 October 2022 (B1/772-839) and 21 July 2023 (B1/840-847) and his order dated 24 July 2023 (B1/848-850). ii) In relation to that judgment: a) The Wife is not bound by conclusions as to tainting of assets. b) The Husband is arguably bound but in the event of a successful appeal the foundations of this hearing would alter. c) The Third Respondent is not bound. d) The Fifth to Eighth Respondents were parties or had reasonable notice of the confiscation proceedings and so are bound within the criminal process but are subject to ordinary principles of estoppel in these proceedings. iii) The CPS cannot deploy all of the material that was available to it in the confiscation order proceedings to rebut any case put forward by the third parties. The court should not, in the event the Wife does not persuade it that the Husband is a beneficial owner, go on to determine who is the beneficial owner of an asset. The CPS would advance more evidence in the Crown Court to confirm that HHJ Tomlinson’s findings were sound. iv) The court should not transfer tainted assets to the Wife. The court will need to determine to what extent assets are tainted by criminality. The Table illustrates that, apart from Sloane Capital and Wellwick Capital, the taint in the Crown Court was based on POCA assumptions. However, even the assumptions based conclusions should bear some evidential weight in this court. v) The CPS maintain that all the husband’s assets are in any event the proceeds of crime as that is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from: a) Multiple convictions spanning a range of offending behaviour including money laundering but also fraudulent and lucrative business transactions. b) The Husband has a dishonest mindset and course of conduct which undermine any assertion that monies were earned via legitimate business transactions. c) The Husband was unable as a matter-of-fact to establish that any of the POCA assumptions were incorrect or that there would be a serious risk of injustice if they were made. d) The Husband’s tax returns establish that he had insufficient legitimate earnings to acquire any or all of the assets. The assertion that they were acquired through earnings offshore falling under a Non-Dom tax regime is unsupported by evidence. e) The Husband’s concerted efforts to disguise his ownership of the assets supports the conclusion they are the proceeds of crime. f) the Husband’s oral evidence does not support the conclusion that the assets were legitimately obtained. vi) Neither the Husband’s evidence or that of Mr Shamutete or Mr Mutati established that they are the true beneficial owners of the assets. a) Whilst there is some evidence of their involvement with assets up until 2005 there is little or no cogent evidence of where the funds came from and their stories of gem trading can be discounted. b) Their involvement appears to largely end in 2005 and their failure to give evidence should lead the court to conclude that this supports the funds not being theirs. c) There is no evidence of Arlingtons Sharmas AS billing them for work, of them complaining, or of them suing Arlingtons Sharmas, which would suggest they were legitimate owners of the funds. vii) Whilst the court should consider each asset individually, the court must also look at the overarching position which demonstrates that the most likely source of funds for each of the assets was criminal conduct. viii) The Husband had a criminal lifestyle and that entitled the Crown Court to assume that any property held was the proceeds of crime unless the Husband established that the assumption should not apply or there was a serious risk of injustice. He did not do that. If the transactions were legitimate that would have been relatively straightforward to demonstrate. ix) The Husband’s position over time has been inconsistent – his section 17 statement accepted beneficial ownership which he now denies. x) Overall, the CPS maintain that all of the assets are tainted and so there is nothing which the court can legitimately share. xi) The CPS submit that if there is anything which is untainted the Wife’s needs have been exaggerated and have provided property particulars which are more realistic. xii) On the issue of implementation of any order it may be that a further hearing will be needed to consider the mechanisms for implementation. DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION General

DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

[151]All of the evidence must be drawn together in a non-compartmentalised, panoramic evaluation. Inferences from the evidence can be made but the court must beware of speculation and I am acutely aware of this given how little we reliably know about the Husband’s finances before the separation. A balance of probabilities evaluation contemplates a range from ‘certainty’ through to ‘only just’, and the closer to the ‘only just’ end of the spectrum the more likely it is that one will find features which are inconsistent with that more likely than not outcome. However, that cannot distract the court from its task of determining on factual matters whether something is more likely than not to be so. If that is the case the law returns a value of 1. If it is not so, the value returned is 0.

[152]I would add that the complexity of the trails that need to be followed and the volume of material that needs to be considered, taken with the inconsistent accounts that have emerged over the years, make the task for the lawyers, the judges and the parties immensely difficult. For Mr Gohil who is a clever and sophisticated investor and lawyer and who set up almost all of the structures we are dealing with and who knows them (for the most part) inside out it is not difficult to identify where a judge, lawyer, party, or investigator has made a mistake or mis-remembered something. It is part of his approach to do so and to lay smoke and to deploy mirrors to confuse and obfuscate.

[153]One cannot assume that every document the Husband produces is forged or tampered with although the convictions and the contents of the Confiscation judgment (as well as his own evidence) amply demonstrate that he has the capacity to manipulate and forge documentation. One therefore has to be extremely cautious about any documentation that he produces which has not been produced through a legitimate source but even for those produced by a legitimate source caution must be applied where he has had a hand in creating the document as to whether what it records was actually true.

[154]In a case such as this, it is almost inevitable that there will be occasional errors of reference or misunderstanding but it seems to me that this case does not revolve around the application of the law but primarily it is a matter of evidence and factual evaluation and that requires the Court to focus on the panoramic landscape, to stand back from individual details and to observe the whole, the patterns of conduct rather than individual events or documents and to avoid the trap of allowing one or two or 10 details out of the many thousands to distract from the essential task of interpreting the landscape which lies before me. To do so risks creating an indeterminable case – where one could continue to litigate until the parties expire – that would be an abuse of both the parties and the system. In order to achieve finality and to enable other parties to have court time allocated to them the court must deliver a result. Although it may be a Ford Focus of a decision rather than a Rolls Royce as long as it does the job and is reliable that is sufficient. I decline to descend into the detail which the Husband would wish and prefer the ‘stand-back and apply a broad brush’ approach of the Wife.

[155]The very considerable documentation Page references: due to differences in the Bundles produced (usually due to the addition of an Index) some of the page references are subject to possible error of +/- up to 4 pages. produced which at times is contradictory (e.g., the ECS documentation regarding the beneficial ownership of Castlegrove Inc (1C-57 /BG3-170) for which there is not a clear explanation, and which might range from forgery to error supports a cautious approach to over-reliance on what documents say. HHJ Tomlinson identified evidence of back-dating documents and forgery. The evidence of how structures have been created to mask true ownership – which may be entirely legitimate – means that one cannot take documents at face value. Obvious examples of this include the layers that have to be peeled back to see that Fougeres Trust and Mr Sodhi were never the real beneficial owners of 88 Sydney Street and that Castlegrove was or indeed that Hemptons were not, and Mr Almquist was in 2001. Thus, the heavy reliance that the Husband and most of the respondents place on the documentation will rarely be an answer particularly when it comes to the documents which relate to structure. Contemporaneous correspondence and some other contemporaneous minutes of meetings or emails may be in a different category but even some of these are template resolutions which tell us little about what other layers may exist below or behind them.

[156]The very considerable documentation that has NOT been produced also supports a cautious approach to over-reliance on documents because the documentary record is incomplete. This is in part because we know documents exist which are MLA material for which consent has not been obtained but also because the parties have chosen not to produce it (this applies to the Husband in particular who produced BG3 at short notice and also produced BG4 which I did not allow him to introduce) but I think also to a degree to the Wife and also to Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati who produced a selection of the statements they obtained from Singapore and very little which addressed the provenance of the funds which they claim funded Parabola and Miramar and which HHJ Tomlinson did not accept.. In addition, MLA requests are quite specific in terms of the requests made which made the process of identifying the documents produced from MLA requests such a task and which does not therefore necessarily result in the disclosure of ALL documents which might be relevant but only those required to answer the request. It is therefore possible, if not probable, that the documents which were produced in answer to MLA requests will not necessarily be the complete record either over time or even within a specific time frame for a particular entity. Thus, what we have may be a dip sample – possibly quite an extensive dipping but not a complete immersion.

[157]The complexity of the dealings with assets with companies being, for instance, incorporated in the BVI, with administration being undertaken by a Mauritian company but based in the Isle of Man with corporate directors from the Seychelles, bank accounts in several countries in addition to accounts operated by the services companies and where the registered shareholder might change several times for no obvious reason and with no visible consideration (1C-72/ 1B-1027), and where there are entities with similar but different names and where assets are transferred from one entity to another with regularity contribute to the difficulty in deciphering the evidence.

[158]The convoluted nature of the transactions may well be common for the lawful reasons the Husband explains – maintaining confidentiality and tax efficiency (including avoidance) but they are also seen in the context of money laundering and tax evasion and so one must be cautious, particularly in this case where there is proven criminality in the form of money laundering, forgery and fraud on the husband’s part in inferring (as the CPS seeks to do) that any transaction which involves that sort of convoluted structure is evidence of criminal conduct. The CPS submission that that the court should infer that all of the transactions that the Husband was involved with which were relevant to the generation of the assets, the subject of this hearing, were criminal in nature is with respect an oversimplification.

[159]The timeframes over which the evaluation of the evidence spans, but condensed now into a 4-week period, brings its own difficulty in terms of my noting there may be pitfalls in evaluating 30 years of activity as if it occurred in months or a couple of years.

[160]The very extensive nature of the documentation, evidence and submissions inevitably means that this judgment presents a record which is no more than the tip of the ice-berg of that evidence but also of my analysis of the evidence and my evaluation of the issues. Recognising the existence of a surrounding penumbra would not I think adequately reflect the proportions of what is recorded and what is not. This judgment does not attempt to address every point made by each of the parties but in its entirety, I have aimed to address the substance of each of the parties’ cases.

[161]The judgment of HHJ Tomlinson is not binding on me although may be in respect of certain parties for certain issues but in the context of this case with its different parties and the applicability of a different legal framework, I have not treated any aspect of it as technically binding on me. It is of course the product of a very extensive court process with evidence deployed in ways which it was not before me and with some MLA evidence which has been inadmissible in these proceedings. It is rich in its recitation and consideration of the evidence. The conclusions reached by HHJ Tomlinson are therefore deserving of great respect and weight, but it is open to me to differ from his conclusions on the evidence. However, it is not my function to review his judgment in particular his application of the statutory framework that he applied. Whilst some of the Respondent’s, notably the Husband and the third, fifth and eighth have focussed on a critique of HHJ Tomlinson’s application of the law and his use of assumptions it is not my function to subject his judgment to a review or to overlay his judgment with my own. The Court of Appeal will no doubt undertake their review in due course based on the Grounds submitted and in the event that a receiver is appointed, third parties will be able to make representations as to the serious risk of injustice issues. Notwithstanding that the Husband was bound by the determination that he was the beneficial owner of the assets considered by HHJ Tomlinson, many of which form part of this case, and that they were the proceeds of crime, I have permitted the Husband considerable latitude in presenting and testing the evidence which relates to beneficial ownership and taint because the presence of the Wife and the other Respondents and the nature of their cases required exploration of those issues to some degree and in which the Husband was the central player. No one sought to re-run the confiscation proceedings nor to extend the findings made but plainly there was some overlap in the evidence and the issues that fell for consideration in each case. What I have undertaken is an analysis of the evidence, documentary and oral, and evaluated that evidence in order to determine the issues in these financial remedy proceedings including the third-party interests. I have had the huge advantage of hearing the oral evidence of the Husband in this process and that fact alone means the evidence base available to me may be better illuminated than perhaps it was before HHJ Tomlinson. Of course, I acknowledge that in certain respects there are aspects of the landscape which are obscured for me by the absence of the non-consent MLA material. However, having mined the seams of evidence to great depth my perception is that material from Hong Kong and Singapore is of limited bearing on the timeframes which are most important for this process which range from the late 90s until about 2005. In respect of the material from Switzerland that would appear to potentially be of greater relevance but in respect of pre-1999 material Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati could have obtained and submitted it but have chosen not to, and for the Husband, Castlegrove, Sunfor and the Third Respondent it would have been available to them likely across the whole period. If it has not been produced by them in support of their case it is likely that is because it does not support it. In the course of my analysis of the evidence and my evaluation of the conclusions that can properly be drawn on the balance of probabilities I have not identified any area where I have concerns that unavailable MLA material might be likely to significantly tilt the balance. Nor have I reached any conclusion which appears so significantly at variance with the conclusions that HHJ Tomlinson reached by application of assumptions that it raises an alarm bell as to his conclusions. As will become apparent, that is not to say that I have not reached conclusions on my evaluation of the evidence and without the application of assumptions which do not differ from his in some respects, but from my perspective those differences arise primarily and perhaps exclusively from the advantage I have had of hearing the Husband’s evidence.

[162]Taking the R-v-Ginwalla (above) and the Moher (above) approach it is neither practicable or possible in this case to undertake a detailed tracing exercise to identify definitively when the Husband’s criminal conduct commenced and what form it took, precisely what assets or part thereof was funded by legitimate offshore business activity, legitimate business which involved tax evasion or unlawful conduct. Such an exercise would have to stretch back into the 1990’s and run into at least 2008 and would replicate the work undertaken in the criminal investigation but extend it many times further. The evidence is rich enough to make me feel confident that a broad assessment can be undertaken which involves drawing together evidence and inferences which are appropriate to make, and which involve no injustice to any party in particular those who have chosen not to attend to support their cases with their oral evidence.

[163]The combination of features identified above make it possible that almost any document or conclusion based on a document alone could potentially be contradicted by another document. The conclusions I reach are based on a much broader evaluation of the evidence which includes the documents but also the oral evidence of the Husband and the Wife and inferences which can be drawn from this and other evidence and from standing back and placing documents or transactions in the overall evidential landscape, from other findings of other courts, of the evidence of other parties and other witnesses.

[164]The detailed Chronology represents a fairly wide-ranging sampling of the documentary evidence incorporating many of the critical documents each party relied upon and that forms the framework upon which my evaluation of the witnesses and the analysis of the evidence rests. The Flow Charts and Tables which the parties have relied upon have shed further light on the evidence, but I have not incorporated them in this judgment. My conclusions are reached on the balance of probabilities. A finding on balance of probabilities might range from being sure, through to being satisfied only just that it is more probable than not. The closer to the only just end of the spectrum a conclusion is, the more the scope for evidence which is inconsistent with that conclusion and that is a fact of the binary outcome system we operate. I do not seek to differentiate between findings where I am sure or where I am only just satisfied – it will be clear in my discussion that there have been some issues where the evidence is very clear and the landscape abundantly lit and clearly discernible and others where there is more shadow, less detail and where conclusions as to what that landscape shows have been harder to reach. Credibility The Husband

Credibility

[165]The combination of the documents, his own written evidence, his oral evidence, the findings already made against him and his approach as set out in submissions all lead to the overwhelming conclusion that the Husband is thoroughly dishonest, perhaps pathologically so and is a man who has no conscience in drawing his family into his web of dishonesty and who will attribute any contrary evidence to misconduct by another whether it is corruption in the police, dishonesty in bankers and businessmen, fabrication and hostility in his ex-Wife. His level of dishonesty and the apparent absence of any moral compass would be noteworthy in most cases but reaches the highest level when it comes from a former legal professional and extends so widely to his closest family including his children and is accompanied by an absence of any real remorse; his statement to the contrary was to the effect he is sorry ‘this’ has happened not sorrow about what he has done. What makes the Husband exceptional in this field is that he presents so convincingly as an honest and sincere man. One can well understand how those in his orbit could be taken in and repose trust in him. He is also extremely knowledgeable and confident in his field in the legal but also the commercial aspects of investment, in particular the use of offshore vehicles and facilities. He has used that knowledge and expertise firstly to the benefit of himself and his clients, to obscure his true financial position from the Wife and the courts, to enrich himself and his fellow convicts at the expense of the people of Nigeria and in this trial to seek to pull the wool over the eyes of the parties and the court.

[166]The Wife is a much more straightforward character although how she is now at age 60 with a 23 year marathon (perhaps an Iron Woman Ultra Marathon would be more apt) to a financial remedy order may be quite different to the woman she was at 37 when she left the Husband following the discovery of his affair. She is clearly a capable, intelligent and conscientious woman who has for long periods had to manage this litigation herself and a dedicated mother. She is a far more honest and straightforward witness than the Husband although not unblemished. Not surprisingly her position in relation to the Husband and his wealth has been shaped by the journey she has undertaken and what she has seen and heard along the way. Her belief in 2004 – recorded in the Recital to the order – that the Husband was not disclosing the full extent of his wealth has been vindicated but whether she is now able objectively to assess the evidence to discern what his wealth is or may have been is, not surprisingly, compromised. The extent of his dishonesty and manipulation provides a fertile soil for her suspicions to flourish. The totality of the evidence would suggest that she was exaggerating to some degree the lifestyle the family lived although the documentary evidence of credit card bills supporting a modest lifestyle is offset by the fact that the Husband was accustomed to deploying large amounts of cash and so disguising the reality. She has also pitched her case at the highest level reasonably possible and so whilst she is a much more reliable witness the court is not in a position where it could simply adopt her case.

The Source of the Husband’s income as at 2002

[167]The Husband’s depiction of his financial position as of 2002 involved very significant non-disclosure of his true position. It is clear that prior to 2002 his work did not comprise exclusively legal work within the parameters of the Arlingtons Sharmas partnership. Indeed, the evidence would suggest that this was only one component of his work and perhaps the smaller part. In addition to his work as a solicitor for Arlingtons Sharmas the Husband was clearly also involved in investing on his own account. The evidence from his affidavit of October 2002 [BG2-382] sets out a series of transactions which contributed to funds in the Odessa account. It is clear from the evidence that the Husband’s father did not have the knowledge or contacts to set up and operate that entity nor to undertake the investment activities which generated the monies, but they were very much within the Husband’s field of expertise. His cross examination of the Wife on his work as a solicitor was conducted on the premise that he did not undertake any other work, yet his own earlier affidavit contradicted this. Having made several hundred thousand pounds profit through these three transactions why would the Husband then down tools whilst continuing to advise his clients on similar matters and manage their investments? I do not accept his evidence that these were his only ‘investments’. This conclusion is not only the logical inference from his own evidence but is supported by much else. The letter of August 2001 from Rekha Yadav alone [BG3-26] about Fazmac confirms he had been one of two investors (the other being Mr Shamutete) in the paint factory and so had substantial funds to invest but also was receiving payments from Fazmac. At around this time (October 2001), Fazmac was valued by the Husband himself at $275,000 [1B-1429]. The fact that he was the beneficial owner (as determined by HHJ Tomlinson and confirmed by my own analysis of the evidence) of substantial assets such as Castlegrove (and the funds to buy 88 Sydney Street), an account at Lombard Odier, properties in India and some of the funds which went into Parabola/Miramar show that he must have had other sources of substantial income as his drawings from Arlingtons Sharmas evidenced by the HMRC records could not have funded it. In addition to his investment activities, it is also clear that he was working outside the parameters of Arlingtons Sharmas and was receiving remuneration for advising on and managing investments or otherwise undertaking management and advisory work. Although he attributed this work to Rekha Yadav I am satisfied that he was undertaking such work and was billing for it outside the parameters of Arlingtons Sharmas. This may explain why Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati have not taken action against Arlingtons Sharmas but against the husband in his personal capacity nor sought compensation for misuse of their funds. This fact that he was advising outside Arlingtons Sharmas is confirmed by several sources – usually reflecting what the husband said; 1C-193 [Westlake and Sunset]; oral evidence re Merrill Lynch withdrawals being consulting fees for Shengo/Parabola; 1C-62/1C-63, OW4-377 [Castlegrove]. The BNP account opening documents for Parabola and Miramar record Castle Grove Consulting Ltd as the referrer not Arlingtons Sharmas and so any referral fee would presumably have been payable to Castle Grove not Arlingtons Sharmas.

[168]On 7 March 2004 [OW4-375 et seq] Castlegrove invoiced Parabola, Miramar and Cetus a total of $62,385 for management services and the husband authorised them all for payment. His evidence was that these Invoices represented the work of Rekha Yadav and a team of 2 or 3 advising Parabola on investment strategy. Quite why Mr Shamutete would have paid separately for such advice from someone with no apparent qualifications in the field when Parabola had the might of Schroders, BNP and Merrill Lynch’s advisory teams is unclear but the invoices are for ‘Management Services’ not Investment or Financial Advice. Interestingly on 7 March 2004 the Husband authorised payment of identical invoices to Parabola for Castlegrove’s management services for the periods of 1 July – 30 September 2003 and 1 April – 30 June 2003 for $14,040.75 (x 2) and $11,515.61 (x2) ; the invoices do not explain why different amounts were charged for identical services. The same occurred when the husband did his billing on 21 October 2003 with Parabola again charged twice with different amounts for the same service. A similar multiple billing occurred in July 2023 which invoiced Parabola $14,040, $3,496 and $11,515 for management services undertaken from 1 April 2002 – 30 June 2002. A total of $68,124 + £2,000 was billed on 31 July 2003 for the 6 month period April – September 2002. The continuum of Castlegrove billing Parabola therefore clearly extends back into the marriage. How Castlegrove Inc could legitimately bill for work allegedly carried out in April 2002 some 8 months before it was incorporated is not clear although if it had ‘acquired’ the business of Castle Grove Consulting that might explain it and why billing was undertaken 12-15 months after the work was carried out is also unclear. It does not suggest dire finances in April 2002. The multiple billing of Parabola for seemingly identical services could support a conclusion that the Husband had erroneously completed billing details, or was over-charging, or that he considered the Parabola funds to be his and was using this ‘billing’ as a vehicle to move them closer to him - albeit still offshore in the Isle of Man. That could support an inference that the Parabola funds were the product of unlawful conduct/crime or that they were not unlawfully obtained but moving them to the Isle of Man made them accessible in cash without bringing them onshore and exposing them to tax.

[169]In addition to these matters, the lifestyle of the family whilst not as luxurious as the Wife’s Form E [4.2] would depict was prosperous. All 3 children were in private schools and the Husband accepts they were considering boarding school for at least the boys; these commitments involve significant sums of taxed income and are inconsistent with the Husband’s earnings from Arlingtons Sharmas as per the HMRC document. They are only compatible with the Husband having access to substantial sums of money. It could be said that these were to be drawn from Odessa, but the evidence does not suggest that this was done but rather that other sources were used. The Husband suggested that the fact fees were in arrears and Arlingtons Sharmas were paying some indicate financial hardship but the fact that there was near £600,000 in Odessa alone and the large cash sums that the Husband was receiving suggest that he was either happy to hold onto his cash and let Arlingtons Sharmas and the school take the strain or that it suited him to depict himself as short on cash. The Husband was using Castlegrove funds to pay his Annabel’s subscription (then one of the most exclusive clubs in London) and just one example of his expenditure (charged to Castlegrove not Arlingtons Sharmas) of £1,600 at a charity auction to buy FA Cup final tickets (equivalent to nearly £3,000 at today’s prices) illustrates a lifestyle wholly inconsistent with the picture he was painting to the court but wholly consistent with a very considerable income from sources other than Arlingtons Sharmas. By 2006 he was paying his lawyers £10,000 from Castlegrove. Large sums in cash were being delivered to the Husband – from the ECS Isle of Man Castlegrove account the amount is £21,500 in August – December 2003 alone which whilst after the ending of the marriage is consistent with the Husband having £12,000 in the safe as at April 2002 which he said the Wife removed when she left. Large sums (much in cash) of £98k [BG1-1107] or £150k [1B-1317] were also expended on the refurbishment of Highlander in early 1998 which would represent a very significant part of the funds from the Guyana Goldfields investment which amounted to £236,000 odd in 1996.

[170]Thus, the evidence as a whole makes it far more probable than not that the Husband had at least 3 sources of income: i) Arlingtons Sharmas ii) His own commercial investments iii) His advisory/consultancy work outside Arlingtons Sharmas. These diverse sources of income and the full extent of the income they generated whether onshore or offshore and remaining offshore or offshore and brought onshore but not declared for tax purposes was not disclosed in the Husband’s 2002 Form E and represents material non-disclosure of income. What that income had generated in terms of assets is examined below.

[171]I shall also consider whether any of this income was the product of unlawful conduct or criminal activity below.

Undisclosed Assets in 2002

[172]Moylan J concluded that the Husband had failed to disclose his true asset position during the ancillary relief proceedings which led to the consent order of April 2004. The Supreme Court upheld the conclusion of undisclosed assets on the basis of i) The evidence of the Husband’s father which raised a case as to: a) The source of funds and ownership of Bhayander bought in 1994 b) The source of funds and true ownership of Ashoka c) The Husband’s interest in Sunfor Trust and the ownership of 88 Sydney Street d) The source of funds for the Husband purchasing a Mercedes SL for £43,000 e) The Husband’s interest in Hempton International to which £15,700 was paid being the sale proceeds of a car f) Whether the Husband had an interest in a Banque IndoSuez account which the Husband’s father denied any knowledge of g) The true ownership of the Odessa funds ii) The evidence of the unexplained Odessa transactions in 2007 which suggested a further source of funds other than partnership income iii) The purchase of the flats in 2006/7.

[173]The Husband’s case has been that he was unable to properly present his case before Moylan J as he was in prison and did not have access to all his papers and now that he has been able to collate his evidence, he can demonstrate that all of those matters have now been proved to be unfounded and there is no non-disclosure. He also maintains that the Wife’s interrogation of his lap-top in April -June 2002 and the very extensive police investigations including the seizing of computers, the hard drive in the void and Arlingtons Sharmas records and MLA requests has subjected him to one of the most in-depth investigations ever undertaken and thus that if there were anything to be found it would have been found.

[174]The Husband’s case that he was not guilty of non-disclosure in 2002-4 or at any time subsequently is not only unsustainable by reference to the evidence that deals with the non-disclosure that led to the set aside but more importantly the decision of HHJ Tomlinson and my own findings are that not only was the Husband engaged in more extensive work activity than he disclosed in his Form E, but that this had led to him becoming the beneficial owner of assets that existed in 2002 and thus there was very substantial non-disclosure then, in 2007/8 and thereafter and on balance of probabilities, there is still non-disclosure now.

[175]This extends not just to the assets currently identified and in dispute but in respect of true ‘hidden’ assets. Although the Husband undoubtedly has been the subject of an extensive investigation, I do not accept the proposition that if there were anything to be found it would have been found. The police investigation did not recover all the Swiss, Singapore or Hong Kong statements that are supposedly relevant to Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati from the Arlingtons Sharmas offices or the Husband although it was said that their statements were kept in London. I do not accept the Husband’s evidence that the laptop that was left at home whilst he was in India prior to the Wife interrogating his laptop from 18 April 2002 onwards was his only work laptop. It may well have contained work material, but I do not consider it credible that the Husband would have travelled to India without his laptop and given up access to emails and files via his laptop whilst away. The extent to which he was engaged in both his Arlingtons Sharmas legal work, his own investments and his freelance business activities make it near inconceivable that he would be in effect out of the loop for 10 days. This conclusion is fortified by his suggestion that on his return and realisation that his home laptop was missing that he reported his work laptop missing to the police thinking that he had perhaps lost it at some point. The suggestion that he could have believed that he had his laptop with him in India and that he might have erroneously thought it had gone missing at some point is not credible. If the Husband did report his laptop missing to the police it is more likely that he did so to promote the narrative that the Wife had had access to all of his files. Nor do I accept that the police investigation including the seizure of the hidden Merrill Lynch statements and a hard drive would necessarily have given them access to all relevant documentation about the Husband’s finances. The Husband is sufficiently well versed in covering his tracks to have adopted means by which tracing his assets would have been made either extremely difficult if not impossible. Some of the invoices for entities contain debits for Safe Deposit boxes but there would be many ways in which a man of the Husband’s sophistication could have covered his tracks. The existence of glimmers or traces of other assets supports the conclusion that not all has been found. That so little has been discovered about the Imxal Discretionary Trust, the sources of the Odessa funds in 2007, the missing $165,705 from the Enzo account of January 2000, and Soc Pem (or Gen) [perhaps a later iteration of Brown Shipley] from the Husband’s notes all point to trails which have not been capable of investigation and to other assets. The evidence referred to in the Chronology for 23 July 2002 strongly supports the existence of a more extensive account arrangement with Brown Shipley and the evidence the Husband produces does not answer this satisfactorily. I acknowledge that in the documents there is the potential to identify all sorts of trails which do not have an obvious end and care needs to be taken not to assume that this means there is another undisclosed asset but those I refer to above all have sound footings in the Husband’s own documents. Given the Husband was undertaking Arlingtons Sharmas work and commercial/investment work for others there will have been substantial financial transactions which will not be related to his own disclosed, discovered or undiscovered assets. The fact that the Husband was able shortly after the divorce to buy his sisters Rolex watches, to fund a lavish birthday party and was able to offer to buy a house for the Wife and children would also support the existence of greater wealth than he disclosed.

[176]Notwithstanding my acceptance of the fact that the Husband was involved in legitimate Arlingtons Sharmas work – certainly during the marriage and probably at times thereafter - there is sufficient evidence to identify the probable existence of known ‘undisclosed’ assets and a strong likelihood of unknown undiscovered assets. The Husband’s communications to Rekha Yadav in early 2015 urge her to claim three identified assets (Raj Classic, 88 Sydney Street and the Castlegrove Julius Baer account) but also refer to the possibility of other assets (see below) and are couched in terms which simply refer to losing three valuable assets rather than losing his life’s work or everything that they have worked for et cetera. The terminology suggests the three assets could well be part of a larger portfolio, but which had been identified by the police and subject to restraint. Having seen the Husband give evidence, the tone of his letters does not carry a sense of desperation which it seems to me they would have if he thought that all he had was at stake. To describe those three assets as “three valuable assets/amounts” when the total value wasin excess of £7 million is consistent with a larger asset base rather than that being exclusively his asset base.

Unidentified Assets

[177]An obvious example of the unknown ‘undisclosed’ asset is that in January 2000 the sum of $165,706.33 was remitted by IMM at the Husband’s instruction from the Enzo funds to an unknown destination. It is unknown because the Husband has redacted the document which was his instruction as to where it was to be remitted and IMM’s response confirming where it was remitted. There can be no doubt as to what the redacted parts of the documents cover. Although in the context of this case it is a ‘modest’ sum it was not modest when considering the capital provision made for the Wife but most significantly is where that sum would lead to. The inevitable inference of the Husband redacting this document is that it would lead onwards to an entity/account which has not been identified and interrogated. If it had been and the $165,706.33 appeared elsewhere there would be little point in concealing it. Perhaps it went to a Lombard Odier account – perhaps to Brown Shipley perhaps somewhere else entirely.

[178]The Husband’s own Notes (albeit later in 2005/6) confirm the non-disclosure [1B-255-258] as they refer to assets which were alleged to be hidden in 2003-4 but which the Husband successfully denied were his at that point. If he was considering borrowing £3m he either had security for this offshore of an equivalent amount or was relying on income of perhaps £750k - £1m per annum. These include Imxal, Fougeres, Sydney Street, Castlegrove, SCI. They also refer to Soc Pem, or Soc Gen and this may be a reference to Soc Gen/Hambros/Brown Shipley (Brown Shipley were taken over by Hambros/Soc Gen. See Chronology for 23 July 2002 which explores how the Brown Shipley investment account which backed the loan used to part finance the Highlander renovation was never adequately tracked down and is not evidenced in BG1). Soc Gen also banked for Crest High though and it is unclear what became of this or its assets. I do not accept the Husband’s account that these notes were aspirational and did not reflect assets he had.

[179]The Husband’s list of requests to Rekha Yadav [1B-1250, item 8] suggests another entity operated by Trustlink (a Mauritian corporate services company) which had funds in it which were not known for the purposes of the restraint order in contrast to the Castlegrove, Julius Baer account which seemingly was. The Husband suggesting to Rekha that she insist on obtaining a bankers draft and depositing funds at ICICI bank would support the existence of another unidentified entity with funds in its accounts.

Imxal

[180]The evidence supports the conclusion that the Husband does have an interest in a discretionary trust most likely the Imxal Discretionary Trust. The TR1 refers to this as do other documents, and the Copex documents of 2007 [1C-193] refer to the Husband having an existing discretionary trust as do his own notes. Given there is no other Trust disclosed that the Husband was a beneficiary of; this points to Imxal. The presence of documents which also point to Mr Zvogbo as the beneficiary of a trust called the Imxal Trust (which identifies Isle of Man charities as a beneficiary which seems odd) does not persuade me that the Imxal is not the Husband’s. BG1-2371 and others would record Dr Zvogbo as the Settlor but the appearance of Imxal on the TR1 and on the Husband’s own notes suggest that this was again a device to distance the Husband from the asset. The Wife’s note that Imxal is Laxmi spelt backwards – a Hindi word for the goddess of wealth – suggests more of a connection with the Husband. What the explanation for the documents which refer to Dr Zvogbo is I cannot determine; there may have been movements in the Trust to change the beneficiaries, there may be more than one entity, there may be forged documents. The documents the Husband refers to in para 32 and Cross Reference i.e BG1-1783 and BG1-2378 refer to ‘The Trust’ or the ‘Imxal Discretionary Settlement’ or the Imxal Trust and so are irrelevant to the Imxal Discretionary Trust for the purposes the Husband puts them although his reference to them knowing as he does the precision required in these matters lend further support to the conclusion that he lays false trails by the use of variants of names. The document at BG1-2386 which produces only the Letter of Wishes of EJM Zvogbo is potentially inconsistent but falls within the zone which a balance of probabilities finding contemplates.

Castle Grove/Castlegrove

[181]Castle Grove Consulting Ltd was established in January 1999. There is little documentation relating to this entity and Castlegrove Inc was incorporated on 9 December 2002. It is more probable than not that Castlegrove Inc was established as a successor to Castle Grove Consulting Ltd; perhaps because the Husband was concerned that some link to the first company might have emerged in the ancillary relief disclosure process. Although the shareholder/owner has never been recorded as the Husband but has moved from Lindsay Smallbone to Rekha Yadav and to and fro since, the true beneficial owner is and always has been the Husband. The removal of Lyndsey Smallbone and the transfer to Rekha Yadav was a product of the difficulties the Husband was having establishing a bank account for Castlegrove Inc because Mr Smallbone had some black mark against him [1C-84 (79)] and the change in beneficial owner was apparently a purely administrative matter. The fact another was identified as the beneficial owner would not matter as the Husband would have de facto sole control through a Power of Attorney and through his position vis-a-vis the directors who would do his bidding under the umbrella of him using the Power of Attorney. This sort of power is seen in action in relation to another company when Mr Shamutete asked the bank directly for some funds and they declined and the Husband had to authorise the transaction.

[182]Subsequent administrative changes have taken place including the eventual transfer from Rekha Yadav to the Third Respondent, Kamla Gohil, which the Husband said was done by Rekha when she was seriously mentally ill and so she had the idea to transfer it to her mum as a trusted person [Husband’s O/E]. Castlegrove also was held by the Saavhi-Pirut Trust which the Husband claimed to know nothing about. Most recently, Castlegrove say Rekha Yadav ‘relinquished’ her ownership to KGBFYOC and there is now no ‘familial’ connection. Given Castlegrove had owned 88 Sydney Street throughout these periods this apparently cavalier attitude to the transfer of beneficial ownership of such a valuable asset supports the conclusion that these are no more than ‘paper’ transfers which are window dressing to disguise the real ownership. HHJ Tomlinson concluded that the husband was the beneficial owner of Castlegrove relying on; a) The husband having an unfettered Power of Attorney b) The ECS flow chart which identified the Husband as the Final Economic Beneficiary c) The Husband had said to ECS that he was the beneficial owner d) The Husband was the common thread linking the funds which passed through Castlegrove e) Nothing in Rekha Yadav’s profile including her HMRC records supported the contention she personally benefited from it.

[183]This conclusion is further supported by a) The husband using Castlegrove funds for his own purposes on various occasions (see above for Annabel’s and FA Cup Final Tickets) b) Castlegrove had very substantial funds available very early on in its history which seems unlikely to have been generated since its incorporation but are more likely transfers in from other entities which were holding the proceeds of the husband’s own investment activities and his advisory work. The Julius Baer statement [1C-149 (144)] shows a balance of $3.298m as at 31 July 2004 – 3 months after the final consent order was made on 30 April 2004. c) Castlegrove Inc had multiple accounts including those identified by HHJ Tomlinson, #169 i) NatWest, Gibraltar which was the first account applied for when Mr Smallbone was the identified owner ii) ECS account (Isle of Man) iii) Barclays (according to ECS logs) iv) Bank Julius Baer v) Lombard Odier

[184]By the time of the Confiscation Order, the Julius Baer account as at 27 September 2016 had a balance of £3,085,206 [CPS Schedule]. What this is made up of is not clear. Some funds came from the Castlegrove IoM account ($150k 8 April 2004), and from Rekha Yadav 12 May 2004 ($97,230) Some may well have come from Pictet and Cie K888156 in the two payments made of $725,000 in November 2005 and $365,000 in June 2006.

[185]Castle Grove Consulting Ltd and its successor Castlegrove Inc was undisclosed between 2002-2004 with all the assets it then held – likely in the millions of dollars as the balance was $3.298m in July 2004 [1C-149].

Odessa

[186]Odessa Management Ltd: This was disclosed but it was asserted the Husband held only a 1/3 share. The Husband’s explanation of the source of some of the funds (Guyana Goldfields etc) may well be true but the suggestion that his father provided the seed-corn for the investments appears to be contradicted by the evidence [1B-1230] which shows funds being received from the Guyana Investments 10 months before any funds were received from the Husband’s father which would suggest the husband had provided that. In due course discussions are recorded about transferring Odessa to Castlegrove and, on the basis that Odessa was truly the husband’s vehicle rather than genuinely shared with his father and mother, transferring it to Castlegrove makes much more sense if Castlegrove is the husband’s. OW4-370 shows Castlegrove transferring $89,500 to Odessa in May 2007 which would confirm a connection. At 1C-111, on 26 May 2007, the Husband tells ECS that the funds are being moved to Odessa for investment purposes; the day prior to his Answers to Questionnaire [1-742 (738)] when he said the account was almost depleted and was about to be closed. The Husband’s father denied any association or knowledge of this account and the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion that the funds generated and invested in this account were the product of the Husband’s work and he was entitled to the funds in their entirety whatever the documentation may have said.

Lombard Odier

[187]Lombard Odier account: The evidence supports the conclusion that such an account existed and was used as a depository for at least some of the sums generated by the Husband’s own commercial activities and his investment advice/management services provided outside the Arlingtons Sharmas perimeters. i) Brad Walmsley e-mail to the Husband of 17 January 2001 [2-301] which refers to ‘your assets’, ‘the portfolio the size you mentioned’, ‘private clients such as yourself’. Although the Husband said this was a generic email which was about clients’ funds and which never resulted in an investment, subsequent events do not support this. ii) On 19 March and 23 March 2003 [1C-83], the Husband speaks to ECS about transferring ‘last 2 shares’ to Lombard Odier. ‘BG asked me to ring Brad’ which seems highly likely to be a reference to Brad Walmsley. ‘Rang BG re update on portfolio transfer/call from Lombard Odier re same’. The Husband’s explanation for these entries was evasive and eventually settled on without seeing all the documents he could only think they had been wrongly transposed. iii) The bankers draft offered to the Husband’s father in 2001 was drawn on Lombard Odier. iv) A deposit of $97,230 was made to the Castlegrove Julius Baer account [1-823#179] from Rekha Yadav which had originated in a Lombard Odier account and travelled through a Pictet and Cie account. On the basis that the Husband was the beneficial owner of Castlegrove and Rekha Yadav has been his cipher this would connect the husband back to a Lombard Odier account. v) The report to NCIS and the evidence of Sima Sud in her letters to her sister support the existence of a Lombard Odier account held in the Husband’s sisters’ names.

[188]The evidence supports the conclusion that a Lombard Odier and Cie account did exist which the Husband denied. It has been used in connection with Castlegrove and I reject the Husband’s account relating to Mr Pemsing. The disclosure of Sandeep Sud to NCIS on its own would not amount to much support but with the ECS references to Castlegrove and the email from Sima Sud to her sisters it supports the conclusion on balance that it did exist and contained substantial funds. The only figure given is $4m. BG1-3711 which the Husband relies on is CPS confirmation that Sima Sud is not asserted to be a beneficial owner of any part of the available amount asserted by the CPS and that reflects that a Lombard Odier account was not part of the assets the CPS had identified. It does not mean that it did not exist in 2002, 2005/6 or even in 2012 or now.

Property

[189]The Husband’s letter to his father, 3 December 2001/11 January 2002 [1B-1306] discloses that he was the owner of Bhayander and Versova and provided the funds to purchase them. In his letter to his father sent in January 2002 he refers to having provided the funds to purchase the two properties and alleges that his father illegally and fraudulently sold the properties. Both the ownership of the properties and the source of funds were undisclosed in 2002-4. The Husband accepted that he had written a letter at this time but denied that this letter was his and he deployed the ‘that language is not mine’ and ‘I would not use those words’ explanation. He accepted that parts of the letter were his but maintained that it had been tampered with to depict him as the owner. The letter really only makes sense if the properties are his and his threats find a symmetry in what Devan says is his attitude when his finances are under threat. I accept that the letter is genuine. I accept that the letter was a letter drafted and sent by the Husband and not something which was either forged by or manipulated by the Wife.

Other Miscellaneous

[190]Rekha Yadav’s report on Fazmac [BG3-23] in August 2001 shows that the Husband had both become a part owner by share purchase and was receiving income. The Wife in evidence recalled Rekha being sent to Africa to be the Husband’s eyes on a business there.

[191]There is suggestion that in addition to Hempton International Holdings Limited there may be another entity Hempton International Limited which may have received the cheque for £15,700 which the Second Respondent said was paid by him [B2-284]. The Wife’s recollection of seeing a statement for Hemptons with $2m in it I would tend to accept, but given the layers of ownership, I conclude the evidence for Hempton International Holdings Ltd being the Husband’s and that it was valued at $2m is insufficient to establish it on balance as an undisclosed asset of any substance.

Parabola/Miramar: Merrill Lynch – BNP-UBP - Pictet

[192]I shall consider these separately when I turn to the third party interests next and which is relevant to the determination of what the 2002 asset base was. Third Party Interests Mr Shamutete/Mr Mutati

Third Party Interests

[193]This has proven to be one of the areas in which the evidence has been harder to decipher. HHJ Tomlinson had the benefit of more extensive evidence than I as he had sight of the MLA material from Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong. That suggests that his conclusions in relation to the third party interests bear particularly careful consideration. But I have had the advantage of hearing the Husband’s evidence and as he is central to this issue that brings different perspective. Neither HHJ Tomlinson or myself were able to hear from Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati which would have provided a fuller picture.

[194]The following elements of the evidence bear upon the issue of whether Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati are mere nominees for the Husband or whether they are of more substance. i) Their field of work and their occupations in mining. ii) The evidence of Mr Shamutete’s business interests: Agenda and Note of his companies [BG3-11-13]. Although the documents are not entirely easy to reconcile in terms of value, they appear to be contemporaneous and so might support business assets valued at $2.358m as at 2001. This is small compared to the $17m Mr Shamutete claims to have generated from emerald trading. iii) Fazmac and sums invested referred to by Rekha Yadav. iv) The contemporary documents from banks in 1999-2001 and records of payments made at Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati’s direction. This all tends to support the conclusion that Mr Shamutete was a man of business alongside his role as CEO of a mining corporation but that those business interests were modest in the funds they generated. There is much less information about Mr Mutati and there are significant questions about the authenticity of his accounts to banks of his sources of income of which more below. Of course, Mr Shamutete’s main case is he generated $17m from an initial $1.7m which grew through emerald trading with Mr Rozan and this was distinct from his business activities (by which I think he means Shengo Holdings and others) which he said generated $800,000 according to his evidence to HHJ Tomlinson. Mr Shamutete says he retired from being CEO in 2000 so all of the monies we are concerned with which provide the funds for Parabola and Enzo are generated whilst he is in that position. As Zambia is one of, if not the, largest producer of emeralds in the world, the notion that the Chief Executive officer of a copper mining company in Zambia was at the same time carrying on an emerald trading business which was generating millions of dollars in revenue (and that is just his share) is one which raises a very considerable number of questions including whether that was permitted under his contract of employment, how it was lawful under the laws of Zambia, where the emeralds were sourced from, how they were traded, how the revenue was received and managed, whether it was declared for tax purposes and many others. None can be asked or answered as Mr Shamutete declined in the confiscation order proceedings or now to give evidence preferring to rely on the documents he produces. When the BNP bank account was opened in July 1999 the description of him as a beneficiary simply refers to him having wide-ranging interests in mining, trading (import/export) and majority shareholding in Shengo Holdings which had substantial consulting and agency business. No reference is made to him being the CEO of ZCCH or the $7 million initial investment being the product of gemstone trading and I do not think the generic description covers it. Even in the somewhat more relaxed regulatory atmosphere that existed in 1999 it seems probable that a CEO of a Zambian mining company telling a banker he had $7m to invest from emerald trading might have led to awkward questions being asked or disclosures being made. BNP met Mr Shamutete at a later date and the records make no reference to him talking of the origins of his funds. BNP did complete money laundering forms [1B-1387] based on the information provided – I infer that disclosure of emerald trading in the sums Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati talk of would have compromised the ability to open accounts and comply with ‘money laundering’ requirements. The documentary record supports the submission that Mr Shamutete was a real person, that the bank considered him to be the beneficial owner of the funds deposited at BNP and the contemporaneous records from 1999 through to 2001 with BNP would support this being their understanding. It also appears from the minutes of the meetings that the investment losses experienced on the account caused a difficult meeting between the Husband, Mr Shamutete and BNP. This appears likely to be a true record of an event. In broad terms the same may be said of Mr Mutati.

[195]It seems clear that the Husband and Mr Shamutete were also engaged in mutual businesses together – the Fazmac documents support this – and so communications between them would be expected on this front as well.

[196]The relationship between the Husband and Mr Mutati is less clear. Mr Mutati gives a broadly similar account. He says he had made money from emerald trading but with a different individual and he had $2.5m to invest. Again, no reference is made on banking documents to him having generated the monies from this source, but BNP record he had a substantial shareholding, jointly with the government, in mines.

[197]Mr Christopher suggested that the Husband would have no need to use nominees such as Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati as he did not use nominees when he opened the account at Pictet and Cie which is a valid question. However, the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the Husband did find benefit in using nominees whether with their knowledge (Rekha Yadav) or without (Mr Sodhi). After 2002 the obvious benefit would be to distance himself from assets which the Wife might have traced. However, the evidence supports the conclusion that this was a component in his modus operandi before then and he was having an affair with Ms Gulab from at least 2000 and the Wife suspects affairs well before this. Tax efficiency, or avoidance or maintaining control through secrecy over his affairs all are good reason for deploying complex structures and nominees. Odessa Management Ltd and Castle Grove Consulting were both offshore entities which enabled the Husband to deploy a corporate vehicle rather than himself for the purposes of investing or holding assets. The Husband would appear to probably have had different reasons at different times, but the evidence suggests his deployment of this structure did not require an obviously malign motive but rather that it was part and parcel of how he had operated for many years whether for tax efficiency or simply because he found other satisfaction in this way of operating. Thus, joining forces with Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati and using them as nominees rather than his own name would be entirely consistent with his way of operating.

[198]The documentary evidence in relation to the handling of the funds from 1999 onwards is fairly extensive and much emanates from the documents obtained in the criminal investigation in England or from MLA material which is available to me. Their participation in giving statements and instructing lawyers demonstrates that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati cannot be characterised as ciphers in the way that it may be legitimate to characterise Kamla Gohil and Rekha Yadav and that they had their own business interests. All this supports the conclusion that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were engaged in a business relationship with the Husband. The Rekha Yadav report on Fazmac also supports this conclusion.

[199]The Bhadresh Gohil Funds Summary document from IMM [20291] [BG1-3270] could be read as illustrating the Husband’s undisclosed assets but the documentation [BG1-3522- 3526, etc] tends rather to support the conclusion that the Richter Equities, Enzo Limited and Miramar Trading Ltd funds were in some way linked to Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati. As they seem to post-date the sums which went into the initial Parabola/Enzo/Miramar accounts and so add a further $1.7m of funds to a pot which is already significantly out of proportion to their declared sources of wealth it begs further questions as to where those funds originated (and ended up) but also, as referred to above, begs the question why they instructed the Husband when they already seem to have had professional advisers who had implemented offshore structures for them; see also BG1-3266 which seems to illustrate how existing offshore funds may have been liquidated to form the seed-corn for the Enzo Schroders account which is not a part of this case. The Bhadresh Gohil funds summary leaves an unanswered question in relation to the sum of $2,050,000 which is said to be ‘Unknown’ and which the Husband maintains is attributable to Mr Pemsing but which might also tie in with the unattributed sum in Enzo when the limited documentary evidence [i.e BG3-125] does not suggest these sums nor does any other contemporary material answer that question. It remains unclear whether that is an example of an undisclosed asset or something which was part of the business that the Husband transacted on behalf of others.

[200]The evidence relating to the assets identified at BG1-3270/2-291 ‘Bhadresh Gohil Funds Summary’ and other documents [BG1-3266 (Deposits with IMM – ENZO Int Ltd)] support the conclusion that prior to June 1999 when Mr Shamutete / Mr Mutati instructed the Husband there was a fairly sophisticated offshore investment structure in place which generated the funds which went into the Enzo IMM account and potentially the Schroders Account, the Parabola Schroders account and the BNP Parabola and Miramar accounts. This does not sit easily with the statement of Mr Shamutete [1A-165 #8] that it was the husband who said he could help him ‘establish’ an offshore structure for security and confidentiality reasons or the account of Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati that essentially they had accrued funds through gem trading which were held by their partner and that these were then placed with Citibank Switzerland before entrusting them to the husband to implement an offshore strategy to protect them from the uncertainties of the Zambian economy and to maintain confidentiality. If they already had holdings of i.e $2.297m in Botley Investment Ltd’, and others such as Millbrae, Brightspark, Naylor, Quintock Ltd, Doyle Inv Ltd, Naylor Holdings Ltd and Anglo-Irish Bank and the Bank of Butterfield what was the need for the Husband to establish offshore structures. This begs the question of what was the true purpose in handing over their affairs to the Husband if indeed this was the beginning of that relationship? The IMM letter BG1-1793 states the transactions on BG13270 are for clients not to the benefit of Bhadresh Gohil. This may be strictly accurate as they in the main refer to corporate entities. It does not confirm who the underlying beneficial owner would be. The evidence points towards the existence of structures prior to the Husband and Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati establishing Parabola/Enzo/Miramar and these structures may have been the work of others or of the Husband. It seems improbable that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati immediately entrusted all their wealth to the Husband, and it seems more likely their relationship pre-dated 1999. The Fazmac enterprise would also tend to support a longer standing relationship.

[201]The documentary trail demonstrates that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were identified as the beneficial owners of the accounts with BNP Paribas and UBP and that they gave instructions for the funds to be transferred from UBP to Bank Pictet and Cie in November 2005. It seems likely that the transfer from BNP to UBP took place because the performance of the funds at BNP (certainly for Mr Shamutete) had been very poor. It is not clear why the funds were transferred from UBP to Pictet and Cie, Singapore. There were several references in the course of the evidence including by the Husband to the regulatory framework becoming stricter and the source of funds coming under scrutiny and whether this was a spur for the movement is not clear. They were also identified as the owners of Enzo Ltd, Parabola and Miramar. Prior to 2005 payments had been made on their behalf from the UBP accounts for household bills, Amex and cash. In April 2005 and June 2005 at least, Mr Shamutete received a report on the accounts. Why he has not produced other reports he was sent and why did he not question not being sent reports after the transfer of funds to Bank Pictet is a question which he was not available to answer. His silence supports a conclusion that he did not regard the funds as his to command. Mr Mutati was apparently a man of less wealth than Mr Shamutete (his bank opening documents say his wealth is greater than $5m) and his apparent lack of interest in what was perhaps 40% of his wealth is surprising, even if one were to assume he trusted his London solicitor. His evidence for the period 2005-2010 is that he trusted the Husband to open the Miramar accounts for him; he understood they had been opened and the bank knew he was the beneficial owner, that he would update him on the performance of his assets and would be shown copies of bank statements and that he was content that the Husband had the bank statements and other account records at his office in London. This again gives rise to a raft of questions not least of which would be what he thought when he saw that the Pictet and Cie statements contained far greater sums than those he had transferred (the Parabola sums were more than double the Miramar sums mixed in the account); what questions he asked in relation to the name on the account and why it was not held in the name of Miramar; whether in that five year period he ever asked for access to any of the sums or for them to be deployed on his behalf in any other way? None of these can be asked or answered.

[202]A very significant gap in the evidence presented by Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati relates to the provenance of all the funds which went into Parabola/Enzo and Miramar in 1999. HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusion was that their explanations that the funds were the end product of gem trading which had been funded by (in Mr Shamutete’s case) an initial $1.7m saved by him which generated $17m by 1999 through gem trading and which had been held by Mr Rozan was not credible. He said in his statement [1A-166#10] that the deposit to Schroders came from his Citibank account, that two entities were set up, Parabola and Enzo although he didn’t know why, and that the funds sent from Citibank to Schroders Enzo account were ‘shortly thereafter paid into my Schroders Parabola account and the Enzo account was closed’ and that he had forgotten about the existence of Enzo. The documents [BG1-3266] suggest that by the end of June 1999 IMM had received $5.676m from a variety of investment vehicles including a sum of $2.594m from an unidentified source which was held in an Enzo account and it would appear to be this $5.676m sum that Mr Shamutete says [1A-167#15] went into the Schroders Enzo account and onward to Parabola Schroders. Subsequently although Mr Shamutete says he forgot about Enzo, in April 2000 IMM received $1.34m from Arlingtons Sharmas [BG1-3228] and in May 2001 IMM received further sums for Enzo of $1.030m [BG1-3270] which Mr Shamutete does not refer to which is something of a surprise given the total is $2.37m.

[203]The Merrill Lynch Parabola account was funded from an IMM Enzo account but the funds for this were transferred to Merrill Lynch on 6 January 2000 so pre-dating the transfers in of $2.37m. Mr Shamutete says he can’t recall which account funded Merrill Lynch, but it was proceeds from gem trading with Mr Rozan. The list of his business interests [1B-1428] from October 2001 which was seemingly provided to BNP Paribas as part of the ‘Know Your Client’ information and thus to support the provenance of the $5,147,096 which had been paid in gave a total value of only $2.36m. This might not have raised any suspicions for that sum but when one also adds in the fact that Mr Shamutete was at roughly the same time allegedly depositing just under $6m into Schroders and $1.7m into IMM which went on to Merrill Lynch the disparity becomes very significant. When one also adds in that the banks were being ‘told’ the funds were from established business activities rather than gem trading which became the subsequent explanation in the confiscation order proceedings the totality confirms that the banks were being misled about the true origins of the funds.

[204]Mr Shamutete also says he paid $6.876m into a Parabola account with BNP which was the proceeds of his gem trading with Mr Rozan. He does not identify where such large sums were held prior to this. The documents show transfers in of $5.147m on 15 July 1999 and $1.729m on 22 July 1999. Given the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson that he did not accept that the funds paid into the various Parabola accounts which were said to have derived from the $1.7m seedcorn which had grown through gem trading with Mr Rozan to $17m and thus his conclusion that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were not the beneficial owners of the Parabola/Miramar accounts but that the Husband was; the absence of comprehensive documents from Mr Shamutete showing the source is a surprise. As Mr Shamutete says he was in control of the funds through Shengo/Citibank/another account/Mr Rozan his inability or unwillingness to produce those documents raises a very significant question which of course Mr Shamutete has not made himself available to answer. The absence of any documents confirming provenance and the lack of an explanation for why, when the finding of HHJ Tomlinson made it the most obvious area for evidential buttressing, supports HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusion that Mr Shamutete did not provide $17m or possibly that if he did he is unwilling to provide information which confirms it all passed through his hands because to do so would tend to incriminate himself and others including the Husband of some other wrongdoing which he is unwilling to expose himself to the consequences of. The same considerations apply to Mr Mutati.

[205]The evidence suggests that Mr Shamutete was engaged in correspondence over the depletion [BG1-3250] and was involved in meetings with the bank [1B-1427] when the BNP funds had diminished by $1.8m due to investment losses and other drawings. This records Mr Shamutete being extremely upset (Mr Gohil was also present) and an issue arose over the bank not acting on his remittance request. This all supports the conclusion that Mr Shamutete had some interest in these funds. The same is broadly true of $2.43m introduced by Mr Mutati into BNP on 13 July 1999.

[206]The paper trail of how those $6.876m funds introduced into BNP in July 1999 were dealt with thereafter is not in dispute in terms of where they went. The paper trail does not make wholly clear – or at least I have not drilled down into the statements to ascertain precisely what happened to all the sums but in general terms their handling seems traceable in broad terms on the balance of probabilities. It is I acknowledge conceivable – although I do not think HHJ Tomlinson judgment identifies this – that those initial sums were replaced with other sums along the way but at present it appears probable that the sums, whilst they became mixed, remained ‘intact’. Thus, of the $4,403,253 which moved from UBP Parabola on 11 November 2005 and the $2,006,178 which moved from UBP Miramar on 11 November 2005 into an account in the Husband’s name, the following represents their onward dealing (in so far as it appears relevant to this case). Pictet: K 888156 6,409,431 $725,000 – Castlegrove: 17 November 2005 (Julius Baer) $200,000 – Imani Securities: 23 May 2006 $365,000 – Castlegrove: 2 June 2006 (Julius Baer) $5,204,637 – Westlake Capital D888296 Total drawn: $6,605,294 [which would appear consistent with investment returns on initial sum and no further capital introduction] Pictet D888296: $5,204,637 $350,000 – Imani 21 February 2007 $2,000,000 - Willard: 29 June 2007 (Julius Baer) $380,000 - Imani/Gupta: 3 July 2007 $120,799 - Lishoma: 12 March 2008 $220,000 – Gupta : 14 July 2008 $2,415,615 – Zetland 14 July 2008 Total drawn $5,496,615 [which would appear consistent with investment returns on initial sum and no further capital introduction] Zetland HSBC $2,415,615 + £56,244 $2,526,600 – Sloane Capital: August 2008 – (Pictet) [This is less easy to be clear of as $11.676m was paid into the Zetland account from the V-Mobile fraud and it is possible that of the $2,526,600 paid to Sloane Capital some part of it is mixed with the proceeds of the V-Mobile fraud].

[207]Thus, of the original $6,409,431 UBP Parabola/Miramar sums they are probably located i) $2,000,000 in Willard, Julius Baer ii) $1,090,000 in Castlegrove Julius Baer iii) $2,415,615 (or $2,526,600) in Sloane Capital Ltd, Pictet and Cie

[208]The very significant gaps in the evidence of Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati and the Husband after the transfer of funds from UBP to Pictet and Cie in 2005 and the apparently minimal interaction with the Husband for a period of years thereafter on balance supports the conclusion that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati did not consider themselves to be in a position to make much demand on the funds or to resort to legal action at that time. That would support the conclusion that the funds were not theirs beneficially or that if they were – in whole or in part – that they could not exercise control if necessary, by legal action. It is correct that Mr Shamutete at least was able to make some demands in 2006/7 (Lonhro, Imani Securities, Suresh Gupta, Lishoma) but what this represents given the Husband’s extensive deployment of these funds on his own behalf to Castlegrove and Willard and Zetland is hard to divine on the evidence before me. It may be that it represented some compromise between the Husband and Mr Shamutete to avoid open warfare or some other agreement but the use by the Husband of $1.1m for his own purposes from K-888156 and $4.4m from D888296 without any known objection from Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati points either to their acceptance that the funds were the Husband’s to do as he wished with or that it was impossible for them to challenge him. The time when the trail is cold in documentary or other evidential terms coincides with the end of the matrimonial proceedings, the Husband’s notes of how to generate wealth and his engagement in the crimes covered by the indictments. Prior to this, although the Husband appears to have regarded the BNP/UBP funds as available to him to draw from in a limited way there seems to have been a change in or around 2005 and that thereafter he felt able to place them in his name and use them as he wished and to distance Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati from them. This and their lack of response all further support the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the funds were known by all involved to be the product of unlawful activity and so legal action of any sort would be a form of mutually assured destruction for Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati and the Husband. Only when legal action became inevitable when the Husband was under investigation and funds began to be restrained did legal action become viable as a last resort to try to regain the funds. Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati’s non-engagement in oral evidence seems likely to represent the best balance available to them to assert a claim but to protect themselves from the probable exposure of unlawful or criminal activities

[209]The Merrill Lynch account of Parabola was clearly dealt with differently to the Parabola and Miramar BNP/UBP/Pictet and Cie accounts. The source of the funds into the Enzo IMM account from which $1,539,000 moved onto the Merrill Lynch Parabola account is undocumented. The onward movement of $1,539m is documented in the redacted documents where the $165,706 disappears from the picture and which the Husband declines to disclose. The additional sum of $400,000 which joined it on 11 February 2000 comes from an Arlingtons Sharmas client account and is said to represent in $ the sum of £265,000 received from the sale of 1 Trinity Court but its most immediate source related to the maturity of an investment – which could be the £265,000 but invested by Arlingtons Sharmas although that seems an odd way to deal with client funds. Thereafter, Mr Shamutete has no dealings with the funds although they do appear in what seems to be a contemporaneous report to him by the Husband. However, all of the documentation completed with Merrill Lynch refers to the Husband being the beneficial owner of the funds and he plainly utilised them at various points for his own purposes. His explanation of his drawings being some form of informal invoicing of Shengo Holdings for works done was clearly not the truth. The evidence suggests a mixing of funds.

[210]Drawing all of the threads together in relation to the funds claimed by Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati it seems to me that the following emerges as the most likely explanations and I so conclude on balance. i) The sums which were paid into BNP Parabola/Miramar accounts and which travelled onwards were not the proceeds of the legitimate business activities which Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were engaged in and which they presented to the banks as the source of their funds. Nor were they the proceeds of the Husband’s legitimate business activity. ii) The funds originated from activities which were unlawful or more likely illegal. This may have been gem trading but could as well have been some other illegal activity. This is the only appropriate inference that can be drawn from the totality of the evidence. In that sense the conclusion of HHJ Tomlinson that they were the proceeds of crime accords with my evaluation of the evidence – these were the proceeds of unlawful conduct. iii) Those involved in the acquisition of those funds were most likely the Husband, Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati and their relationship pre-dates the actual formation of the Parabola/Enzo/Miramar structures. In this respect my conclusion is more nuanced than HHJ Tomlinson in that it seems most likely (albeit it is not determinable by me on the balance of probabilities) that there was some joint endeavour by the three which generated the funds and so whilst the Husband has a beneficial interest in them so also do Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati. I am unable to determine whether there was an agreement between the three as to their respective shares in the total. It is possible that each of the three had engaged in their own ‘enterprise’ which was unlawful and came across each other and joined forces. It is also possible that the three joined forces and embarked on a joint enterprise which then generated the funds. The evidence would suggest that Mr Shamutete had a larger share than Mr Mutati, but the evidence does not enable me to determine what their shares were nor what the Husband’s share was. It is possible he had an equal share in the amounts that were allotted to them but many other variants are possible. The absence of evidence which bears upon this prevents me making any firm attribution. iv) In the initial years, the Husband’s pay-out in respect of his share was in the form of fees charged. He ‘milked’ these funds and some of the proceeds went to Castlegrove Inc. In the early years Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati were able to access the funds through payouts of the form they described. v) The way he treated the funds in the Parabola and Miramar accounts – billing them large sums in the name of Castlegrove, making cash withdrawals, representing them as his own to Pictet, extracting large sums of $725,000 [1B-915] and $365,000 [1B-926] from Pictet and Cie to pay to Castlegrove and presenting himself as the beneficial owner to Pictet and Cie all support the conclusion on balance that he was the beneficial owner of at least some of the funds which went into some of the accounts. I have considered the possibility that the funds were all Mr Shamutete’s / Mr Mutati’s funds and that he simply abused their trust by over-charging and misusing the funds but their inaction and the apparent fact that after the Pictet and Cie transfers they neither received nor pressed for details of how their investments were performing support the conclusion that they themselves accepted their interest in them was at best partial and somehow subsidiary to the Husband’s. The fact that the Husband implemented transfers requested by Mr Shamutete for instance to Imani, to purchase Lonhro shares, to LM Lishoma support the conclusion that the Husband accepted the funds were not solely his. vi) After 2005, as the Husband descended into a greater degree of dishonesty, he converted the entirety of these funds to his own use paying substantial sums to Castlegrove in 2005 and 2006. This may have represented to him some reflection of what he thought his share was, but the evidence does not enable me to determine this. It clearly was not a legitimate fee to Castlegrove for advice/capital raising etc but an exit route for some of his share. It seems most likely that a dispute ensued with Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati but they could not take the matter to court as this would have risked exposing their own unlawful/illegal conduct and so a stand-off occurred with the Husband misusing the funds - misappropriating sums but also making some deployments required by Mr Shamutete. It does not seem that Mr Mutati was able to achieve anything similar. vii) $2m was later placed in Julius Baer in the Willard name. I have not located any document which confirms Willard’s incorporation or the identity of the alleged beneficial owner but note that the Husband maintains it is owned by Mr Mutati. viii) $2.626m was later placed in Pictet and Cie Sloane Capital Ltd account. I have not located any document which confirms Sloane Capital Ltd’s incorporation or the identity of the alleged beneficial owner but note that the Husband says it is Mr Shamutete. ix) The current location of the remnants of the original funds is therefore a) A Castlegrove Account b) A Sloane Capital Account c) A Willard Account x) I agree with HHJ Tomlinson’s ultimate conclusion that these are the proceeds of crime but differ in that those in the Sloane and Willard accounts are jointly owned by the Husband, Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati but in indeterminable shares. The funds in Castlegrove on balance I conclude represent part of the Husband’s share and so are beneficially his, but they are the proceeds of crime as determined by HHJ Tomlinson. For my purposes I would categorise them as the proceeds of unlawful activity but as the evidence does not enable me to determine their actual source it is probably a distinction without a real difference in legal terms. xi) In relation to the Merrill Lynch Parabola account different considerations apply. The balance of the evidence including what the Husband said to Merrill Lynch, the manner in which the $1.539m was managed and the deduction of $165,700 to an unknown destination, the way he treated the funds, and the absence of clear evidence confirming Mr Shamutete provided them leads me to conclude that the most likely explanation, and on balance of probabilities I find, that the Husband himself was the source of the majority of the funds into the Merrill Lynch account being the $1.539m. On balance it seems this account was a vehicle to deploy more legitimate funds and the subsequent $400,000 was the proceeds of sale of Mr Shamutete’s flat. Whether he told Mr Shamutete that he had opened this account for him or that it was in his name, but he had paid the proceeds of sale into it as part of the wider agreement over the application of the unlawfully obtained funds which went to BNP I cannot determine. The evidence about the nature of their relationship and what was agreed at that time is so limited and the inability to explore it with Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati makes it impossible to determine. The use of Mr Shamutete or rather Parabola as cover for this account may well have suited the Husband’s purposes and Mr Shamutete may have been willing to participate as part of an overall scheme with the Husband to assist in creating the structure to deal with the ill-gotten assets. Thus, the sums in this account are on balance not the proceeds of crime and are beneficially owned in the main by the Husband. Mr Shamutete is likely to be the beneficial owner of that part which represents the $400,000 initial deposit if it is established that he was the owner of the property which contributed that. Given the findings of HHJ Tomlinson are binding on him he may be able to present a case in Receivership that there would be a serious risk of injustice if he can prove the property was his and originated from his legitimate business activities.

[211]Thus, the assets in the Willard and Sloane Capital accounts do not seem to me to be assets which the Wife can establish any claim against. The Husband has a beneficial interest in them as determined by HHJ Tomlinson – but so do Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati albeit I cannot determine the respective shares - but they are tainted by unlawful conduct. I say this recognising that HHJ Tomlinson concluded on different evidence that they were all the Husband’s but were the proceeds of crime. On the other hand, in relation to the Parabola Merrill Lynch account, I do find as a matter of fact that it is primarily the Husband’s, it representing the proceeds the proceeds of legitimate but undisclosed business activities during the course of the marriage and is an asset available for distribution subject only to a deduction in respect of the $400,000 which at present appears to be linked to Mr Shamutete and which he may be able to establish is indeed his and is also untainted by crime.

Rekha Yadav - Castle Grove – Castlegrove - Sunfor Commercial Inc

[212]Although she no doubt has some skills and has worked for the Husband and others, she is not the person who has established and operated Castlegrove and generated the funds. She is a cipher for the Husband who has used her like others to advance his interests. Her HMRC records do not suggest an individual functioning at the very high levels the Husband suggests. They do support her working for the Husband in his businesses for some periods of time and her report on Fazmac makes clear she was operating under the Husband and Mr Shamutete’s direction.

[213]Castlegrove/Sunfor. The evidence that I have referred to previously demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that it is the Husband who has been the driving force behind Castlegrove and before that Castle Grove Consulting and that it is not Rekha Yadav who has generated the assets of Castlegrove or Castle Grove but the Husband. The submission that Rekha Yadav relinquished ownership in December 2019 to KGBFYOC Foundation has not been the subject of any evidence other than the production of the register of shareholders. Given the value of the shares in Castlegrove ought to be in excess of several million dollars given the underlying assets and the evidence of the Husband’s involvement as beneficial owner it plainly creates far more than a prima facie case and cries out for an explanation from the directors of Castlegrove to support the assertion that there is now no familial interest. I reject that case.

[214]The most significant assets now beneficially owned by Castlegrove are the Julius Baer account and 88 Sydney St. The evidence trail in relation to Sydney Street was a complex one, although having spent some considerable time evaluating the documentation it does appear that the transaction in 2001 did not result in the beneficial ownership of the property ending in the hands of the Husband through the vehicle of either Hempton’s or Castlegrove/Fougeres. It is not entirely clear what the purpose of the transaction was in 2001 but the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr Almquist continued to reside there and that it was only in 2004 that beneficial ownership passed from him with the proceeds of the sale which Castlegrove provided then passing to him – less two very significant deductions for tax issues of which at least £234,000 passed back to Castlegrove and were held in a Pictet and Cie account [1B -1204].The device which was used to shield the true purchaser involved the creation of a front in the Fougeres Trust which I am satisfied involved the Husband using Mr Sodhi’s identity without his knowledge to pursue the device which ultimately was designed to secure ownership of the property with the possibility of doing so at a price very much reduced by the tax retentions which accompanied it. This was at least £234,000 which returned to Castlegrove and may have been more as the end result of both the corporate and personal tax liabilities is unclear.

[215]The source of the funds was a loan taken by Castlegrove with Julius Baer but this must have been backed by sums held in other Castlegrove accounts and the redacted statement suggests the loan was probably cleared by the end of 2004. Although the purchase post-dates the separation and indeed the consent order the funds which were used to affect the purchase (or back the loan and repay it) must have roots in the business activities of the Husband in the preceding years. Given the separation and the intense scrutiny of the Husband in this period I conclude it is probable that his business activities in this period were limited both by his pre-occupation with the breakdown of his family and the litigation but also by the fear of discovery and so when one sees the Castlegrove Julius Baer account balance of around $3,298,093 as at July 2004 I would expect (and find on a balance of probabilities) this broadly reflected the then proceeds of a balance from April 2002 subject mainly to investment gains but probably not significant further post-separation accruals from business. The headline purchase price of Sydney Street was £1.45m (about $2.6m) but of this at least £234,000 was returned and it may be that £504,000 was returned to Fougeres/Castlegrove.

[216]There is one question mark over the source of the funds which is that Castlegrove were invoicing Parabola/Miramar and others substantial management fees during this time. Some of this seems to be legitimate as Castlegrove was billing Mr Almquist’s corporate entity for management services but to the extent Castlegrove was billing Parabola/Miramar for managing their accounts when the funds from those may have been the proceeds of unlawful/illegal conduct there arises a possible issue of taint. The billing required the funds to be remitted to the Castlegrove account with ECS at the Isle of Man bank and it may well be that the Husband was accessing these funds by cash withdrawals of the sort documented and that these payments did not contribute to the Castlegrove Julius Baer account which funded the purchase of Sydney Street but rather funded the Husband’s living expenses. Absent the entirety of Parabola/Miramar and Castlegrove’s banking records back to 2003/2004 which document which accounts paid the sums to Castlegrove and how they then progressed through Castlegrove it is impossible to trace precisely any role those contributions to Castlegrove paid from potentially tainted Parabola/Miramar funds might have played. I conclude on balance that the purchase of 88 Sydney Street cannot be shown to be contributed to by tainted funds. I note that HHJ Tomlinson identifies at paragraphs 176 and 179 some transactions relating to the origins of the Julius Baer Castlegrove account and initial deposits emanating from ECS and Rekha Yadav’s Lombard Odier account and it may be that these indicate the shifting of funds from the Husband’s undisclosed Lombard Odier account and from other Castlegrove accounts to form the sum which is later seen in July 2004. If further evidence is available in MLA material which shows the payments made to Castlegrove came from BNP/UBP funds that might require a further accounting to be undertaken.

[217]At paragraph 184 of his judgment, HHJ Tomlinson concluded that 88 Sydney Street was acquired with the proceeds of crime. The CPS in their closing submitted that this was an assumption-based conclusion rather than a determination on the evidence and I think that must be right. The totality of the evidence relating to the acquisition of 88 Sydney Street supports the conclusion that the transfer in 2001 did not transfer beneficial ownership away from Mr Almquist but rather that took place in October 2004. The funds for the purchase originated with Castlegrove including a loan which must have been secured with other assets as no charge was taken against the property. In so far as Castlegrove/Sunfor contend that the conclusion of HHJ Tomlinson was wrong that it was purchased using ‘proceeds of crime’ (insofar as that expression means monies emanating from proven criminality) that may be right, but I express no view on how the assumptions are properly to be applied. For the purposes of this hearing, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was purchased with funds that had accrued to Castlegrove from a variety of sources including from its variant Castle Grove Consulting Inc which was the Husband’s vehicle from 1999 (and which referred Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati to BNP) until Castlegrove Inc was established in the BVI in 2002. On the balance of probabilities – and here I may depart from the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson (although again I am not entirely sure whether his conclusion was assumption based or pure evidence based and my sense is it was assumption) - Castlegrove was established in the midst of hotly contested financial remedy litigation and so the probable reason for its creation was to break any possible trail that the Wife might have located and to shift operations to a new entity but which in essence carried on the same business that Castle Grove Consulting had – receiving referral fees, billing clients for investment/corporate management services provided by the Husband. It seems that there was some payment of tainted funds from Parabola/Miramar to Castlegrove and so to this extent Castlegrove received tainted funds, but the evidence demonstrates that Castlegrove was a vehicle for the Husbands legitimate business activity as well and I conclude that the funds which purchased 88 Sydney Street were based on funds generated by legitimate activity prior to 2002. The evidence I have considered, including that relating to Castle Grove Consulting Limited, points to Castlegrove not being solely concerned with laundering but to have a purpose in processing the Husband’s legitimate income from his other activities prior to 2002. Whether it came to be used at some point solely for laundering proceeds of crime is not an issue for me to determine as my focus is on the whether assets generated prior to separation can be traced into current assets. This conclusion and that of HHJ Tomlinson are not necessarily inconsistent with each other I don’t think but if they are I prefer my analysis.

[218]Thus, the purchase 88 Sydney Street was made using Castlegrove, on balance with legitimate funds acquired by the Husband prior to 2002, it is beneficially owned by the Husband as determined by HHJ Tomlinson and according to my own analysis and it is available for distribution to the Wife.

[219]Following the purchase of Sydney Street, the Castlegrove Julius Baer account received transfers in from the Husband’s Pictet and Cie account in the sum of $725,000 on 17 November 2005 and $365,000 on 2.6.2006. Those represent funds which were part of the jointly owned BNP/UBP funds originating in July 1999 and which are the product of unlawful activity and so the current value of those funds in the Castlegrove Julius Baer account are tainted and not (primafacie) available for distribution.

[220]Raj Classic appears to have been funded by Castlegrove in 2006 and is held in the name of the Husband and the Third Respondent. The evidence does not make entirely clear what the overall purchase price was – the transactions recorded on 21 June 2006 in the Chronology which span June – October 2006 total $72,120 which seems low given the property was valued 10 years later at £793,576. I note that HHJ Tomlinson also refers to “some part of $147,140” being used to fund its purchase but I have been unable to locate documents showing the full purchase price.

[221]There is no evidence that the Third Respondent made any actual contribution and in all likelihood and as found by HHJ Tomlinson the true beneficial owner is likely the Husband. The source of the funds in Castlegrove is unclear. By the time of the purchase the Husband was involved in criminality which is covered by the indictment and the purchase was it seems effected from funds emanating from the Julius Baer account which by this point had received the $1,090,000 from Pictet and Cie. However, as the Julius Baer account held $3.298m in July 2004 of which a maximum of $2.18m appears to have been used to purchase Sydney Street, a balance would have remained which would have been available to purchase Raj Classic and so this could have been purchased with legitimate funds which could be traced back to 2002.

[222]The fact that the Castlegrove Julius Baer account held a balance of £3,085,206 as at 27 September 2016 – after the purchase of Sydney Street in October 2004 and Raj Classic in 2006 which would have seemingly used a very significant part of the $3.298m legitimate funds which existed in July 2004 gives rise to an issue over the source of those funds both in terms of whether they represent funds which date back to the marriage but also whether they are tainted. The sum of $1,090,000 is identifiable as arriving in November 2005 and June 2006 but the remainder is not. HHJ Tomlinson concluded that the sums in that account represented the Husband’s benefit from general criminal conduct. Subject to it being possible to determine with precision the sums used to purchase Raj Classic and their origins it seems probable that the Castlegrove assets which have their roots in the marriage and are beneficially owned by the Husband but untainted by crime are: i) 88 Sydney Street ii) Raj Classic iii) That part of the Julius Baer funds which represent the balance of $3,298,093 after deducting the purchase costs of the two properties. Sums received by Castlegrove after July 2004 – save in so far as they are returns on sums invested – and which represent income/asset accrual which post-dates the marriage are not part of the matrimonial assets in any event and HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions would bite on them.

Kamla Gohil

[223]In respect of the sums held in the Slavonian Finance account I am satisfied Slavonian is the successor to Odessa and that the third respondent had no interest in this, and the Husband was the beneficial owner of the entirety. The funds which transferred to the Slavonian Finance account from Odessa were it seems likely, given the absence of a source of funds, to have come from another undisclosed pre 2002 asset – possibly the $165,700 removed from the Enzo funds which funded the Merrill Lynch account but they could have come from many other possible sources including Soc Gen/Brown Shipley or Imxal or Lombard Odier. I am satisfied they were the proceeds of legitimate business activities by the Husband prior to the separation.

[224]The Third Respondent’s interest in Highlander is not in issue. I have dealt with her potential interest in Raj Classic in my consideration of the Husband’s provision of the purchase funds through Castlegrove. Relevance of Criminal Conduct and Taint.

[225]The evidence as to whether the Husband began engaging in criminal activity prior to his activities with Mr Ibori and others connected with the extraction of funds from Nigeria is limited. The Indictment identifies 2005 as the commencement of the Indictment criminality. A payment of $4.78m went via Parabola Schroders in August 2005 and an Arlingtons Sharmas account was used from June 2005 through to 2006. As the Husband now denies that he was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted by a jury and of the crimes to which he pleaded Guilty, his own evidence in this area is of even more limited assistance. His own evidence is that he first became involved with Mr Ibori in 2005. He gave no evidence as to what drove him to crime because he denies any crime. Had he accepted that he was guilty and given an explanation for what motivated him (and had that been a credible one) some dividing line might have been discernible between his criminal activities and his commercial/legal activities. However, on his own account there is no clear blue water between the innocent and the guilty. One inference from this could be (and the CPS submit it is the proper one) that the continuum that exists is one of criminality extending into the 1990’s, through to 2005 and thereafter until the Husband ceased his activities following his arrest. The CPS submit that the manner in which the realisable assets were handled down the years is indistinguishable from the manner in which the indictment assets were handled and that the quacking duck analogy can properly be applied. The CPS produced a Schedule of the realisable assets identified in the Confiscation Order and of those assets only: i) Wellwick Capital SA at Banque Franck (£382,625), and ii) Sloane Capital at Bank Pictet and Cie (£1,897,014) were identified as being demonstrably linked with the funds generated by the Indictment crimes; the remainder were tainted because POCA assumptions applied to them. On the basis of my own and HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions about the origins of the Parabola/Miramar funds it seems that some of the funds in Castlegrove Julius Baer ($1,090,000 came from Pictet K888156) and the Willard Investments Inv Ltd Julius Baer ($2m received from Westlake, Pictet D888296) could also be said to be the proceeds of laundering as well but I have considered the most likely origin of those funds above.

[226]The Wife submits that she is not bound by the findings of HHJ Tomlinson in any event as to whether the realisable assets represent the proceeds of crime and that in respect of many of them, they were the product of the application of assumptions rather than findings of fact based purely on the evidence. In addition, she points to the paucity of evidence deployed in support of the CPS case that the assets to which she lays claim are in fact the proceeds of crime. Albeit the determination was in a somewhat different context Mr Sirikanda relied on the approach of Males J in Namli-v-SOCA

[2013] EWHC 1200 (QB)

when very extensive and varied evidence was deployed by SOCA in support of its case that the court could be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that funds were the proceeds of ‘unlawful conduct’ (i.e. a crime under the law of the UK or a crime under the law of another jurisdiction if committed there).

[227]Although some professionals may be dishonest to the core and intend to act dishonestly within their profession from the get go, others may well be lured into criminal conduct; some with their eyes wide open and others through naivety. In this case, there was no obvious moment in time for the Husband to move into criminality as is occasionally seen when a professional falls on hard times and is lured by the prospect of easy money. The financial crash of 2008/9 was well after the Husband’s criminality began. Although to the outside world his financial position may have been presented as precarious in 2002, this was not the reality or at any visible time prior to or subsequent to that and so there was no visible and compelling financial need to embark on criminality. It may be that his introduction to Mr Ibori’s circle and Mr Ibori himself held out the prospect of such large benefits that his greed got the better of him and that although he was doing reasonably well beforehand the lure of millions was too much. My conclusions in relation to the source of the BNP/UBP Parabola/Miramar funds is that they must have been the proceeds of unlawful or illegal activity of an undetermined nature and the Husband’s propensity to bring cash onshore without declaring it for tax purposes would all support the conclusion that the Husband had been prepared to act unlawfully when it suited his purposes. However, given the evidence of his engaging in legitimate business in parallel, it is clearly not appropriate to infer that all the Husband’s activities prior to 2005 were also criminal in nature. It may be that he had engaged in unlawful and criminal conduct of some form down the years and the Ibori monies were simply another step down that road albeit a step then involving very considerable sums. The evidence in relation to Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati was considered in some depth by HHJ Tomlinson and he was not persuaded that their explanation of their wealth accrual was established, and he noted that on their own accounts they may have been committing criminal offences under the laws of Zambia, but this was not a finding. HHJ Tomlinson concluded that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati had not established that the Parabola/Miramar funds were theirs for a number of reasons including the lack of a credible explanation for the origins of the monies by Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati which has a domino effect on the funds in Parabola and Miramar; the coincidence of large sums arriving at a time when James Ibori became governor; the similarity in the accounts and means by which the Ibori monies were laundered with the way the Parabola and Miramar monies were used. However, another explanation for those funds is they were the product of unlawful or illegal behaviour of their own and the Husband unconnected with Mr Ibori which the Husband then set about legitimising through the Enzo/Parabola/Miramar structures.

[228]The impact of the litigation between 2002-2004 clearly reduced the Husband’s resources significantly. The Odessa funds were expended and further sums from Castlegrove were deployed to fund the legal costs. In addition, as I have recorded earlier it seems probable that the fallout of the separation and the litigation had an impact on the Husband’s ability to conduct his activities beyond Arlingtons Sharmas; a combination of laying low, his energy being focussed on fighting the Wife and lack of time or inclination. Thus, when he emerged from this in 2004 it seems probable – and is supported by his own Notes from 2005 – that he was eager to get rich quick. That seems likely to have acted as a catalyst for the Husband becoming involved in the more extensive criminality of the indictments but also in taking over the Parabola/Miramar funds when they moved to Pictet and Cie. What the Husband’s ultimate plan in respect of the balance of those funds was cannot be established. The intervention of the criminal investigation and the restraint of funds mean the trail of activity goes cold. Whether he planned to deploy all of those funds to his own advantage or to share them to some degree with Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati, I cannot determine. Although past performance can never be an entirely reliable guide the trail over the period 2005 would suggest he would do as he chose with them but might relinquish some parts if the situation required him to do so.

[229]It is a difficult trail to follow with the Husband, but the conclusion of best fit and on balance of probabilities is that the Husband’s descent into the indictment criminality in money laundering, fraud and forgery was preceded by a lengthy progression from legal practice, into freelance investment, to freelance advice/consultancy which came to include acting for (amongst others) Mr Shamutete/Mr Mutati, engaging in tax avoidance and tax evasion and extending his reach into activities which were either unlawful or criminal and then to processing those funds alongside legitimately obtained funds, engaging in wholesale non-disclosure and concealment of assets in 2002-2004 including manipulation of evidence, moving to taking advantage of his own clients such as Mr Almquist on the sale of 88 Sydney Street and to forging documents to hide his own acquisition in 2004 and thus onwards to the obvious criminal conduct which he was convicted of and pleaded guilty to. The totality of the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that even whilst the Husband was engaged in criminal conduct there were elements of ‘true’ legal work through Arlingtons Sharmas which was of benefit to the Husband as it provided the legitimate cover for his other activities and which he would then and does now seek to deploy to provide an innocent explanation to all his activities.

[230]R v Ginwalla

[2005] EWCA Crim 3553

at [20], supports the court being able to approach the evaluation of the reach of criminality and the tainting of assets by means of a broad assessment rather that a detailed tracing exercise. On the evidence before me such a detailed exercise would not be possible in any event because the material would have to reach back into the 1990s and would require the availability of evidence relating to undisclosed assets which simply will never be available and for individuals to give evidence who will not or cannot. Thus where it is not possible to draw conclusions based on specific evidence I must inevitably undertake a broad assessment incorporating what I can from HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions and what I can discern to determine what is tainted and what is not and to determine what the value of the assets were and are now.

[231]There is much that I agree with in HHJ Tomlinson’s analysis – although there are differences of emphasis which I think most likely arise from the different legal frameworks and evidence bases which we have worked from. I am not sure to what extent some of the documentation before me was before HHJ Tomlinson; there is so much, and its presentation is rather fragmented it is hard to know. If I differ in some respects from his conclusions having undertaken my own analysis of the evidence which is before me that is most likely because I have heard from the Husband and so have an evidential picture on which I feel able to reach conclusions without the assistance of the POCA assumptions.

[232]I am unable to determine clear dividing lines in time of when the Husband first engaged in activity which amounted to a crime. His character suggests he does not respect normal legal boundaries – perhaps he does not recognise normal boundaries should apply to him. I am not persuaded on the evidence that I have seen that I can or should infer that he was laundering funds for Mr Ibori or any other individual prior to 1999 or between 1999-2005. The dates on which the initial large transfers into Parabola and Miramar are in 1999 and if they were the proceeds of Ibori linked criminality it would have had to commence prior to or almost immediately when he became Governor. More probable explanations emerge from the evidence I have heard which is that Mr Shamutete, Mr Mutati and the Husband had their own scheme which generated the large sums which funded BNP/UBP. The CPS have not sought to actively prove a case against the Husband alleging other criminal activity pre-2005 which it would have been open to them to do (see SOCA -v- Namli) but have relied on the judgment of HHJ Tomlinson and inferences from the way the Husband managed the funds. The fact is that the police enquiry led to indictments which dealt with criminal activity from 2005 onwards and the evidence before me as to the Husband’s mixture of legitimate and illegitimate activities do not satisfy me that the CPS submission that all the assets now identified can be inferred to be the product of criminal activity is one, I should accede to.

[233]I do not consider that the way the Husband managed funds provides an inevitable inference that they were unlawfully generated or the proceeds of money laundering. The insight from the Odessa transactions alone is that the Husband was capable of generating substantial investment gains and of keeping them in a way so as to avoid or evade tax or discovery by the Wife. His early activities with Odessa seem to me in the light of all the evidence to illustrate that the Husband was already well-versed in the arts of disguise through offshore structures and that these are likely to have become more sophisticated as time passed and he became more expert in his craft. That he also chose to put that expertise to criminal use in certain respects does not mean that everything he did was criminal. In respect of assets, he generated from scratch after 2004 and which are not connected to the marriage the judgment of HHJ Tomlinson is determinative. In respect of assets generated prior to separation or which derive from such assets, my conclusion is that, save in respect of the BNP/UBP funds, which the totality of the evidence including their subsequent handling of demonstrates they are tainted and that HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusions hold good, the Husband’s 2002 assets are not proven to be the proceeds of criminal activity. To the extent that those UBP/BNP funds infect other current sources, they are affected and an apportionment – in broad ‘Ginwalla’ terms is required.

Current Assets – the extent to which they represent Matrimonial Assets in 2002

[234]Drawing the threads together the following therefore represents the asset base in 2002 in terms of legitimately acquired assets untainted by crime and its current location and value. 2002 Asset 2002 Value Current Asset Current value (from CO) Imxal Trust Not known Imxal Trust Not known Castle Grove/Castlegrove (all accounts held) $3.298m JB - 88 Sydney Street - Raj Classic - 88 Sydney Street Rent - SCI Schroders - Julius Baer - £3,250,000 - £793,576 - Foxtons: £15,455 + SCI BoM £279,573 - SCI Schroders £33,433 - Julius Baer £3,085,206 [less $1,090,000 less purchase price of 88 SS and Raj Classic] Odessa £590,000 Lump Sums of £100,000 and £170,000 Slavonian Finance £100,000k – W’s solicitors £170,000 – W (inc loans) Schroders: £180,348 Lombard Odier $4m Not known $4m Property in India Sold by R2 Fazmac $70,000 Not known Parabola Merrill Lynch $1.539m Merrill Lynch £1,521,341 Brown Shipley/Soc Gen Not ascertained. Not known Not known

[235]In respect of assets which the Wife makes a claim against but which I conclude do not have roots in the marriage or which represent assets which are tainted by crime they are as follows: i) Wellwick Capital: Banque Franck, Galland & Cie Account 429170 20882, 429170 20883, 429170 20884. The company appears to have an account opened on 22 February 2007. The judgment of HHJ Tomlinson at paragraph 216 records the Husband as being the beneficiary and shareholder and the source of funds as being accumulated savings/family wealth. The address was given as Raj Classic and the Husband transferred funds to Sennbridge in order to enable his mother to operate a bank card. In his S.17 response, the Husband stated that he was the beneficial owner and that they are legitimate funds (1B/270). In the Confiscation Order he seems to have said they arose from the Lengau investment. The Husband now says that the money belongs to a group of investors who have not made any claim for the money. The sum in the account is £382,625. There is no visible link back to the marriage. The date the account is opened and the lack of a visible link to the marriage means that in order to link it one would have to infer that this was a current manifestation of a previous undisclosed asset which is certainly a possibility. HHJ Tomlinson concluded the funds were covered by the General Criminal Conduct assumption. The totality of the evidence including any inference that I feel might be appropriate does not enable me to conclude that this is an asset that on balance can be traced back to the marriage and the conclusions of HHJ Tomlinson stand in respect of it. ii) Bilt Finance. Hinduja Bank account (£2,847,298) This seems to be incorporated on 1 July 2008 and the account opened shortly thereafter. On 16 July 2008 it received circa $3.6 million from Crest High (1B/337 and OW4/804)). Crest High was incorporated on 16 March 2006. The Crest High accounts received circa $1 million from an unknown source in February 2007 (OW4/631), $500k from Dubai and $300k from Nigeria in March 2007 (OW4/623 and 625), and $3 million from Nigeria in April 2007 (OW4/608-9). In his S.17 response, the Husband stated that he was the beneficial owner and that they are legitimate funds (1B/270). The Husband now states that the money belongs to Mr Okaloko (or Mr Hinduja) who has never laid claim to the money. 1B-337 – Nitu Gulab said the Husband had said they were a fee for capital raising and were his, funded by Notore Nigeria funds. This entity appears long after the marriage ended and has no visible connection back to pre- 2002. The evidence of Nitu Gulab and the husbands suggest they may have been linked to activities undertaken in relation to the Lengau enterprise and all the payments in are in 2007 post-dating the Husband’s criminal conduct and unconnected to the marriage. The balance of the evidence supports the conclusion this is not linked to the marriage as the funds emerge long after and there is no obvious link to pre-separation activity and in terms of the size of the funds their emergence at a time when the Husband had become immersed in criminality leads me to conclude that whilst the Wife can establish, they are beneficially owned by the Husband they are not referable to the marital assets.HHJ Tomlinson’s conclusion that they are the proceeds of crime cannot be displaced and indeed seems the most probable source of them given the lack of substance and inconsistency in the Husband’s assertions. iii) Willard Investments Ltd – Julius Baer Account 0303.2846 (£1,513,858) Willard was seemingly incorporated on 26 April 2006 and this account opened on 30 January 2007. It received $2m on 29 June 2007 from Pictet & Cie D888296 Westlake which was beneficially owned by the Husband and he had informed administrators that the funds were from his savings and family inheritance (see IC/193, 165-168 and BG3/213). The Husband says these funds represent the current location of the BNP – Miramar funds and they are owned by Mr Mutati. Although funded by $2m from the Westlake account there is no direct correlation with Mr Mutati as the $2,006,178 which moved from Miramar to Pictet on 11 November 2005 is not ‘the same’ money which moved 18 months later; it being less than the original anyway and with no increase for investment growth and no apparent deductions on Mr Mutati’s instruction. In any event the source being the Westlake Pictet and Cie account it falls under the conclusion that the funds are jointly owned by the Husband, Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati and are the proceeds of crime. iv) Zetland Financial Group Fiduciary Account 102-397296-274 (£2,008,332.84). This is an account operated by company administrators and received funds on 14 and 29 July 2008 from Pictet and Cie, Westlake of $2,415,615 and £56,244 (said to be from Lonhro share sale). It also received $11.676m from the V-Mobile Fraud - at paragraph 144 of his judgment HHJ Tomlinson refers to a sum of £5,745,665 arriving from Arlingtons Sharmas’ account in June 2008 and this may be the sterling equivalent of that $ sum. Mr Shamutete and the Husband say the further transfer of $2,526,600 [1A-188] represent Mr Shamutete’s share from the BNP Parabola account eventually landing in the Sloane Capital Account. If those original BNP Parabola funds did move on, then it is not clear what the balance in this account represents – the inference of HHJ Tomlinson’s judgment would be that they derived from the V-Mobile fraud. There is no visible connection with the marriage and although it is conceivable the Zetland funds represent a current manifestation of a hidden asset the evidence of the use of Zetland as a route if not as destination for the V-Mobile fraud funds as well as an apparent connection with the (Parabola) BNP-UBP-Pictet (Westlake) funds would support the conclusion that even if there were a trail back to 2002 that the funds were subject to the conclusion, they were the proceeds of criminal conduct. v) Sloane Capital Limited – Bank Pictet & Cie Account 888586 (£Sterling and US$ sub-accounts) (£1,897,014.44 + £11,250.00). Incorporated in Seychelles in July 2008. The account was established by Zetland with the Husband as the beneficial owner. $2.526 million was paid in by Zetland on 8 August 2008. In his s.17 response, the Husband stated that he was the beneficial owner and that they are legitimate funds (1B/268). The Husband and Mr Shamutete now say that these funds represent the current location of the balance of the Parabola BNP-UBP-Pictet and Cie (Westlake) funds. They are subject to my conclusions in relation to their origins that although they can be traced back to pre-2002 they represent the jointly owned funds of the Husband and Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati and they are the proceeds of criminal conduct.

DETERMINATION AND CONCLUSIONS

[236]The Wife submitted that in 2002 there were marital assets which were valued at least £10m then and (by Indexation) valued at £18,198,925 now. My conclusion set out above is that the following assets existed then i) Imxal Trust: not possible to attribute a figure. It may have held the other undisclosed assets such as Lombard Odier together with other assets. ii) Castle Grove Consulting (based on Castlegrove) $3.298m odd. iii) Odessa: £590,000 iv) Lombard Odier: Substantial. The only figure given is $4m. v) Property in India: Value not known vi) Parabola: Merrill Lynch: $1.539m vii) Fazmac. $70,000 viii) Unidentified: $165,706 + Trustlink operated entity ix) Brown Shipley/Soc Gen

[237]The total value would appear therefore to be not less than $9,072,000 and the £590,000 in Odessa. I appreciate the acceptance of $4m for the Lombard Odier account requires an acceptance of the figure given by Mr Sud but given I am satisfied overall that there was a substantial sum in this account and that there are other undisclosed assets of a substantial nature I do not consider there is any injustice to the Husband or the CPS in adopting such a figure. I take into account in attributing this broad valuation also that £15,700 disappeared into Hemptons although I have not accepted the wife’s submission that I should identify that as an undisclosed asset valued at $2m. One can either seek to name a sum or remain in the territory of a substantial asset measuring 7 figures. It seems to me preferable to identify a figure – even if one has to recognise that it is rather rough and ready. The Wife therefore has succeeded in confirming that there was substantial material non-disclosure by the Husband in 2002. In addition to the non-disclosure of those assets is the non-disclosure of the unknowns such as Brown Shipley/Soc Gen and Imxal, his various income streams and the non-disclosure of his share in the Parabola/Miramar funds which went to BNP/UBP. Whether there was further non-disclosure in relation to other funds which formed part of the total of near $20m that Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati assert were theirs from gem trading is a matter I do not need to address.

[238]The current assets which are owned by the Husband beneficially and which are not tainted by the proceeds of crime are as follows. I include those which I found existed in 2002 and which remain undisclosed. Given the Husband has had no visible income for the last 17 odd years it seems more probable than not that he has been drawing on those hidden assets in order to fund his living expenses. To what extent those hidden assets are held in the names of family members or entities this cannot be determined but I do not accept that his living expenses have been funded by others (save as nominee holders of his funds) as he clearly has undisclosed assets available to him. Asset and extent of beneficial ownership of Husband Value (all values are long out of date going back to 2016/17 Imxal Trust (100%) Not known Castlegrove/Sunfor/Fougeres/Yadav (100% interest) - 88 Sydney Street - Raj Classic - 88 SS Rent - SCI State Bank of Mauritius SCI Schroders Julius Baer - £3,250,000 (2017) - £793,576 (2017) - Foxtons: £15,455 (2023) - SCI BoM £279,573 (2012?) - SCI Schroders £33,433 (2016) - Julius Baer what remains of £3,085,206 [less $1,090,000 {£813,432} less purchase price of 88 Sydney Street (£1.45m or £1.216m){mid-point = £1.33m) and Raj Classic $72,120 [53,820] + [some part of $147,120] = @ £887,954 – [some part of $147,120] $1.34 = £1 at 2016 rates At a Glance Slavonian Finance (100% interest) Schroders: £180,348 Lombard Odier or other current variant (100% interest) Not known but circa $4m Brown Shipley/Soc Gen Not known Merrill Lynch (On balance shared with Mr Shamutete arising from his contribution of property funds of circa £250k which might arguably be the subject of ‘serious injustice’ submissions if he can establish clean provenance.) £1,521,340 [less $400,000 {£298,507} being the funds attributable to Mr Shamutete’s contribution. Depending on what has happened to the account in terms of interest or investment returns this $400,000 deduction might require adjustment] = @£1,222,833 Unidentified: $165,706 + Trustlink operated entity Not known Total £6,663,172 + $4m

The s.25 MCA exercise: Sharing, Compensation and Needs: Conduct

[239]The Wife’s primary case is that the assets she identifies should be transferred to her as she maintains that the Husband has other unidentified and unfrozen hidden assets and that in any event there should be an adjustment in her favour from equal sharing because of the Husband’s conduct and because of her additional contributions to the care of the children over the years since separation and/or as compensation for the impact on her of having to fight for 23 years rather than progress her life and her earning capacity.

[240]If the asset base in 2002/4 was not less than $9,072,000 and £590,000 the wife’s then entitlement based on sharing principles would have amounted to $4,536,000 + £295,000. Clearly, it is likely she would have been awarded more than 50% given the conclusion would have been that this represented the baseline and there was likely further significant value in undisclosed assets. On my valuation of the current asset base at £6,663,172 (identified) + $4m (still undisclosed) {£3m at today’s exchange rate} of the current total of £9.663m her baseline entitlement would be £3.331m + £1.5m.

[241]The Wife’s alternative case (depending on whether the court concluded the assets are tainted either wholly or to a very substantial degree or that the asset base in 2002 was smaller than she submitted) calculates her needs-based case as 4-bedroom home worth £3.2-3.5m (particulars at Bundle 1B:, page 1739-1751) and Duxbury Fund of £2,667,000 . The lifetables in “At a glance” suggests that the applicant has 26 years and 7 months left to live.

[242]The Wife’s needs relatively generously assessed are somewhere in between the Wife’s case and the CPS i) Property: The Wife has selected properties which are in highly desirable areas and significantly superior to Highlander which whilst nominally a gated property with a pool in a pleasant area is somewhat misleading when one looks at what it actually comprises. The CPS properties are significantly less desirable and less well located although given their location in North London are more expensive. The Wife’s range of £3.2-3.5m and the CPS range of £0.775-£1.25m are both in my view inappropriate. A property in the region of £2m would be appropriate. ii) Her income needs are significantly overstated. She has clearly been living in straightened circumstances for many years given she has lived on benefits and with loans and family assistance. That impecunious standard is clearly inappropriate if(a) it is not consistent with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and

(b) which could have been maintained since 2002 based on the availability of sufficient assets then to have made its continuance appropriate and affordable. Given my conclusions on the asset position in 2002-2004, a significantly higher standard of living is appropriate and affordable. However, her own assessment is inflated, in particular in relation to meeting the expenses of her adult children, her home maintenance, gardening, domestic help £20,420, her travel £13,300, life policies of £2,400, her general expenditure budget of £52,04. These all appear excessive compared to the standard of living depicted during the marriage. During that time holidays were limited, there was limited domestic help and the family led a life consistent with prosperity but far from extravagant. I have already referred to the fact that the budget documents from pre 2002 do not truly reflect the lifestyle given the Husband’s reliance on cash but even allowing for that the standard of living was not as the Wife now remembers it. An annual budget of £80,000 (equivalent to £135,000 gross) [NHS consultant or head teacher or District Judge territory] would result in a Duxbury of £1.3m [F, aged 60]. iii) That would combine to produce a ‘Needs’ based award of £3.2m

[243]The starting point of equality and sharing of the matrimonial assets would remain a valid starting point but in the circumstances of this case it does not remain a valid end point. Adjustments are required to take into account the following: i) The husband’s conduct over the course of the last 23 years in failing to disclose his true wealth and putting his family through the devastation that the litigation and his criminality has wrought. His conduct is so gross and obvious it needs no further elaboration. It is not borderline. ii) One of the consequences of that conduct has been that the Wife has been unable to move on with her life and has as a result not been able to acquire an earning capacity as a solicitor (or anything else she might have chosen) and so there is an element of compensation for that loss to be taken into account.

[244]Given that I am satisfied that the Husband continues to have access to hidden assets which are likely to be substantial – in the broadest possible terms they are likely to run to 7 figures – his needs will continue to be met from them and so any adjustment in the Wife’s favour will not impact on his ability to meet his needs. As he has chosen not to admit the existence of undisclosed assets in 2002 I have been unable to determine what became of them and I acknowledge the possibility that they have been spent or otherwise depleted or might form part of the other assets covered by the Confiscation Order but the totality of the evidence satisfied me on balance that the Husband still has access to other assets both because he is able to meet his needs but also because he is such a sophisticated operator that the hints of other assets are likely to represent real and substantial ones available to him. In respect of identified funds, they would not be of any benefit to him anyway as they would fall to be confiscated in any event. However, there is the public interest to be considered in ensuring that criminals’ assets are confiscated to benefit the state and that interest in the Husband retaining some of his assets for confiscation purposes must be taken into account. If the assets are tainted a very strong case based on the sort of argument referred to in CPS -v-Richards would have to be established.

[245]The Wife says it is in this category given: i) How she has been prejudiced over the years by the husband’s conduct. ii) The suffering which the applicant has endured as a result of delay and non-disclosure, including (but not exclusively) meeting the intervenor’s case today, homelessness, the shame of her children having to be taken out of schools, reduced employment prospects and earnings, the extent of her ability to invest in property and pensions for her future; coupled with iii) Her lack of knowledge of the first respondent’s criminality.

[246]Given my findings in relation to the extent of the assets which derive from the husband’s legitimate activities prior the breakdown of the marriage, the Wife does not need to seek an order for distribution of tainted assets to meet her needs.

[247]In a case which is as unusual as this the determination of the balance of adjusting the parties’ shares of the assets to reflect the husband’s conduct and the compensate the Wife whilst also weighing in the balance the public interest in meeting the Confiscation Order is, it seems to me, very much an art rather than a science. The Husband’s conduct is at the highest end of the scale in terms of dishonesty and its consequences. The Wife is now nearing retirement age and has come through the last 23 years with health problems but financially she is still afloat. Given my conclusions on the assets which the Wife sought orders in respect of and the other assets which are subject to the Confiscation Order, the marital pool of identifiable untainted realisable assets of around £6,663,172 compared to the realisable assets of £27,967,337.48 amounts to a modest 23.82%. If the Wife were to receive the entirety of that pool of assets the Crown would still receive £21m odd and the Wife would only be receiving about 68.5% of the total of the marital assets assessed at £9.663m.

[248]In addition to those assets, the Wife will also retain the £170,000 which she received under the original order and when this also is added into the total matrimonial pool (increasing it to £9.833m) an award of £6,663,172 plus her retaining that £170,000 gives her a total of £6,833,172 or about 69.5%.

[249]As the impact of an order for the Wife to receive more than the identified untainted assets of £6,663,172 would in effect mean an order against tainted assets, which I do not consider to be justifiable on any needs basis, the order that I will make is that the Wife should receive the entirety of the assets identified and set out above which will give her around 69.5% of the total marital pool of assets including the lump sum she already has in her possession. Although had the available asset base been somewhat different she might have secured closer to 75% or 80% based purely on the adjustments which could be justified by conduct and compensation. It seems to me that 69% is within an acceptable range and properly reflects the actual asset position. She might have reached 100% of the assets allowing for the court’s conclusion that the Husband has substantial undisclosed assets but as the $4m Lombard Odier asset is not a realisable one I prefer to make an award which is capable of being met from identified and realisable assets.

[250]The sum I have reached is built on the application of the sharing principle, adjusted by reference to conduct and compensation and incorporates the totality of the section 25 exercise. The sum the Wife is entitled to exceeds my evaluation of her needs and in fact exceeds her own evaluation of her needs. It takes account of the parties’ income and earning capacity, their needs and their assets.

[251]The husband’s application for downward variation of periodical payments is refused.

Implementation

[252]As both the Castlegrove Julius Baer account and the Merrill Lynch account will likely be subject to the receivership in respect of the balance which remains the husband’s post marital acquest or which Mr Shamutete might argue over in respect of the possible proceeds of sale of his flat those accounts might be subject to a charge – either in respect of a specific sum or a percentage of the total.

[253]In respect of the real property a property adjustment order will be made in respect of 88 Sydney Street.

[254]In respect of the appropriate orders in respect of Raj Classic and the other bank accounts held offshore, further consideration will need to be given to what orders should be made.

[255]I acknowledge that some of the calculations above are broad brush (or rough and ready),but I consider the advantages in finality terms more than offset any disadvantage in inaccuracy of arithmetic, exchange rate, tracing of precise sums through accounts or otherwise.

[256]Many of the sums identified were long out of date and I acknowledge this may affect the calculation made. My intention is that the assets I have identified should be the subject of the order rather than the sums set out and where deductions need to be made to reach the untainted and realisable asset of the Husband consideration will have to be given to how that is to be implemented.

The impact on the Confiscation Order

[257]Given my conclusion that there are hidden assets available to the Husband, I do not consider it appropriate to make any recommendation in respect of any reduction in the Confiscation Order to reflect the award made to the Wife. He may be able to make his own application for variation under section 23 POCA (formerly a Certificate of Inadequacy) but if not, as for any defendant with hidden or untraced assets, it will be the Husband’s choice whether he is prepared to reach into those assets to meet the balance of the Confiscation Order or whether he will choose to serve a period of imprisonment in default (albeit the balance of the order would remain payable even after service of that term).

Finalisation of Order

[258]Given the issues surrounding the implementation of the division of assets that I have determined it seems likely that a further hearing will be required to finalise the scheme of the order although if the parties are able to agree an order, I will consider that.

[259]That is my judgment. CHRONOLOGY Case No. FD02D03678 Key:260. Judicial observations

261. The Wife’s account (VG)

262. The Husbands account (BG) DATE EVENT REF 27.09.64 VG D.O.B W worked as a recruitment consultant for 6 years prior to marriage 05.12.64 BG D.O.B 1 -8 17.12. 84 BG’s parents purchase Highlander, 158 Leesons Hill, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6QL (“Highlander”) property. [The families] collective dedication [to the retail business] led to our parent’s comfortable retirement by 1988. In 1984 when I was aged 20 my parents purchase Highlander symbolising our family’s success Bundle 1, p75 1-629 14.07.90 Date of the parties’ marriage. VG and BG live with BG’s parents at 158, Leesons Hill, Chislehurst, Kent (‘Highlander’). Bundle 1, p8 29.07.90 Traditional Hindu Wedding. BG1, p10 Bundle 1B, p593 1990 VG alleges ‘domestic abuse’ against BG on honeymoon. Bundle 1, 618, 639 September 1990 – September 1991 BG states VG worked in employment for 12 months. Bundle 1, p638 31.10.91 Son born (Devan). Bundle 1, p8 1992 BG commences work as a solicitor. H starts radio programme called Dawn Trader assisting Asian Businesses which he left in 1994 having built up a number of new clients for ASS My background demonstrates my long-standing work ethic, our family’s business acumen, and my personal drive for professional achievement… I committed myself fully to my family focusing on building a secure future for us all. 1, p630 BG1-10-11 October 1993 VG gives up work/career on BG’s encouragement to care for the family and home. N.B. Difference as to when stopped work - BG’s s25 statement:

“Just prior to the birth of our first child, Devan in 1991, Varsha ceased full time work”. 1-609 Bundle 1, p630 05.11.93 Son born (Keval). Bundle 1, p8 October 1993 BG joins Vijay Sharma Solicitors (now Arlington Sharmas) as 40% equity partner. W: H undertook frequent travel overseas for his work as a commercial lawyer. I was therefore the mainstay of the family as H’s parents who were retired were also dependent on me for their care. H: My position from 1993-2002 as a high-net-worth international commercial solicitor naturally involved handling significant sums, corporate entities, and complex commercial transactions “There was on the face of Arlingtons’ internal arrangements an equity partnership between BG and Mr. Vijay Sharma who though considerably older than BG was not in my judgment the more senior of the two partners.”

Bundle 1, p8, 630 1-609 1B-36 1-775 1994 A flat in a suburb of Mumbai (known as ‘Bhayander’) was purchased. It was placed in BG’s father’s name. BG’s father stated that BG had provided the purchase price. Bundle 1, p735 25.06.94 (BG states) Divine Sheraton purchased by BG’s parents in India, funded by Rekha Yadav. H: My father owns Divine Sheraton Plaza. It was purchased by him in 1993. I provided some funds by way of drawings. BG1, p11, BG, p1265 BG2-332 11.11.94 Certificate of Incorporation states Sunfor Commercial Inc incorporated in BVI on 11.11.94. - BG states at [61] in 23.01.25 statement that “SCI was established by ECS in 1994. It was an entity owned by the Sunfor Trust, a Gibraltarian Settlement. The beneficiaries of Sunfor Trust were Swedish ASS clients – Lennart Bohman and Bryan Almqvist; Mr Bohman was a client of Mr Vijay Sharma, the firm’s senior partner. He was murdered in Thailand in April 1996 after which Mr Almqvist became the ASS client and his Settlement, the Sven Trust took over the commercial assets.” Bundle 1B, p1178 BG1, p2395 Mid 1990s Mr Shamutete and Mr Mutati both assert that they met BG in the early to mid-90s. Bundle 1, p824 1A-166#8 January 1995 Sunfor Commercial Inc incorporated. H by inference identified as B/O in letter of 22.3.2006 Bundle 1, p626 BG1-2884 01.05.95 BG buys BMW 3 Series Car (N464 GGT) in his own name and on hire purchase plan. BG1, p11 25.1.1995 Lennart Bohman was appointed the POA for Sunfor Commercial Inc on 25.01.95. BG12398 08.06.95 Sunfor Commercial Inc (‘Sunfor’) became the registered owner of 88 Sydney Street, London, SW3. Address on register Sunfor Commercial Inc c/o Fougeres, c/o Alexander Marks solicitors. See the subsequent history The property transfers from owners by passing the bearer share in Sunfor CI and so the owner doesn’t change 1 -713 1-859 1B-297 13.03.96 Odessa – Share Certificate. Bundle 1B, p1228 April 1996 Mr Bohman dies 1B- 73 June 1996 Odessa: draft Declaration of Trust stating H, R2 and R3 all have 1/3 of bearer share in Odessa. R2’s signature doesn’t appear 1B 1309 July 1996 Odessa Management Ltd (“Odessa”) established and registered in British Virgin Islands. Account number *602004. Claimed by H to be owned in equal shares by him with both of his parents by way of bearer share. R2 says his signature on a document declaring H, R2 and R3 to be beneficial owners of Odessa account is forged and denies any connection or knowledge of the account. One bearer share held at Schroders Bank, Switzerland – this is the bank which hold the company’s bank accounts. H: My father and I had agreed that the proceeds which we had received from the earlier stock market investment in Guyana Goldfields … together with my parents funds from the sale of their remaining commercial property should be pooled into one joint family account. Funds from Guyana Goldfields 11.6.06 £62,923 27.9.06 £94,000 27.9.06 £66,000 27.9.96 £14,000 Managed by BG’s friend, Dominique Dzuirzynski Only evidence of ownership - Declaration of Trust dated 08.07.96. H’s description of Odessa trading habits are of his work and of the funds being retained offshore. Bundle 1, p8, 675 Bundle 1B, p1001 Bundle 2, p20 1B-1310 BG2-381 BG2-381 14.8.1996 Family holiday to Mexico BG1-544 04.09.96 BG states that his parents purchased a Nissan Micra – Odessa funded. BG1, p11 09.04.97 Daughter born (Shivani). W says H told her his career and business activities were flourishing. Sometime later he told her they were financially secure for life and she would never have to work again. Bundle 1, p8 June 1997 BG states BG’s father upgrades to Mercedes S320L. Funded with Odessa. BG1 does not produce any documents about this cf when H buys Mercedes in July 2000 BG1, p11 11.8.1997 Imxal Settlement changes trustees. Letter of Wishes: The Imxal Trust BG1-2390 BG1-2391 Nov 1997 Brown Shipley (stockbrokers) offer loan to H of £50k (likely on basis that Odessa had an investment portfolio with them) for the extension to ‘your’ house. H states that the Brown Shipley loan of £50,000 was taken out to facilitate part of the refurbishment of Highlander and £50,935.92 was repaid on 15.08.02 after the bank requested early repayment. Forensic accountant unable to track repayment through route H described The sums shown on the Odessa account in early 1998 do not correlate to any document relating to the building works and in particular the large sum of £52,080 does not relate to the alleged payment on £50,935 in Aug 2002. Unless Odessa had a facility in November 1997 it seems unlikely they would loan sum - £52,080 is remitted from Odessa to Brown Shipley on 3 Feb 1998 but that could not be collateral for a loan agreed 3 months earlier. Bundle 1B, p1147 BG1-1285 10.12.1997 ES (Edward Shamutete) passport issued in Zambia (ZG00213) [expiry 10.12.2007]{ID No 200955-11-1} Certified as true copy by H on 30.3.1999 Seemingly submitted as ID evidence for Schroders Enzo account. BG1-3184 January 1998 Extensive renovation and extension work undertaken on ‘Highlander’. Financed by BG, managed and supervised by W. ‘Flow of Funds’ Schedule for works by VG & BG’s affidavit of 11.03.03. HHJ Tomlinson found that H had provided £98,000 to fund the renovation and paid R2 £800pm W: all three of our children were attending feepaying schools and we also undertook a huge renovation of our home such that it doubled in size H financed it H: Varsha’s grossly and vividly exaggerated marital standard of living lies at the heart of her subsequent material inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Her approach appears to be a calculated effort to construct an exaggerated narrative and unrealistic financial expectations that are wholly disconnected from the realities of the marriage. …From their first breaths until our separation in April 2002, our children never lacked for anything. I poured every ounce of my energy into working, driven by the desire to provide them with the best opportunities and comforts. My tireless dedication to work was, at its core, a testament to my unwavering commitment to my children’s well-being, even as I navigated my professional waters alone. H St 7.02 The cost of refurbishment was not significant £97,761.95 cost of works. H says funded from Odessa and Brown Shipley accounts 4 payments of. £10,020.80 and £52,020.80 Contract appears to be with H BG2-390 H says W’s estimate of £150-200K is an exaggeration. BUT his letter to his father [1B-1317] he says £146k was spend Odessa Man statement shows in Jan/Feb 1998 significant payments out (3 x £10,020.80 to Barclays, 1 x £52,020,80 to Brown Shipley and transfers in from “one of our clients” of £30,500 and £2,415 Brown Shipley draw-down (cash) of £10,000 (6.2.1998) £24,000 in cash on 12.2.1998 Balance of £50,623 (1.7.2002) H says repaid in Aug 2002 but at BG1-11 says it was paid in Feb 1998 It is not clear what H says the product of his tireless endeavour over many years was. To read the narrative of his statement one would anticipate significant financial fruits of his endeavours as a lawyer and businessman; matching if not exceeding those of his father and mother. However there is a huge disconnect between his description of his efforts and his acumen and the product of them. Clients included Dr Zvogbo (a Zimbabwean cabinet minister. ES and UM alleged they provided funds of several million $ to invest (HHJ Tomlinson did not accept their figures). His evidence [1B-56] identifies numerous clients who he says are legitimate clients and he cites in support that the very extensive CPS investigation did not identify them as his. Bundle 1, p8 1-845 1-609 1-636 BG2-318 BG1-11 BG1-1107 BG1-1110 etc BG1-1129 BG1-1285 H: She is fully aware of the significant and continuous problems I have with the law firm and just how hard I have had to work to maintain its survival BG2-329 1998 BG’s father asserts that BG purchased a new Mercedes SL Convertible for about £43,000. On 30.04.04, BG alleged that his father had paid for the vehicle. N.B. Inconsistency in evidence – Before Moylan J, BG’s father denied that he had paid for any part of it. Bundle 1, p736 1 May 1998 H writes to W about state of marriage ‘You clearly do not appreciate nor value what you have, but I guess you don’t believe you have a lot….. Indeed despite all my current financial problems and otherwise….. I am being used by you and everybody else as a workhorse, just keep working so you may all enjoy the fruits of my labour… … I have had to do to get the house to the state it is now you will never know… I have fulfilled my commitments by giving those around me the best. HMRC 1997/8 partnership loss of £43,718 (drawings of £44,321) 1998/99£47,723 profit (drawings £44,321) 1999/2000 ??? (Drawings £22,030 In 1999 H says he purchased a cherished number plate for £4,600 [BG2-333] which seems extravagant with those drawings. Says his capital account is overdrawn by £69,536 which needs immediate repayiment BG1-649 BG2-336 7 Oct 1998 Enzo International Ltd incorporated in Mauritius IMM is Co Sec Shareholder is Conqueror Ltd Schroders Bank account applied for April 1999 H has no apparent connection with this at this point. BG1-3180 7.10.98 Hempton International Holdings was incorporated. Managed by International Management (Mauritius) Ltd. It had a Company account with Schroders Bank. Dr Edison Zvobgo identified as the beneficial owner. [69] “All credits associated with Hempton appear to predate 1998.” [70] “This asset is related to Imxal Discretionary Settlement, managed by ECS International Trustees (Gibraltar) Limited under the terms of a Settlement created in 11 August 1997. Bundle 1B, p48, BG1, p2327 18.01.99 Castlegrove Consulting Inc (BVI) Incorporated. 1B -1205 -21 1999 Purchase of Ashoka Flat, Versova, Mumbai, India. Property placed in BG’s father’s name (BG’s father asserts that BG requested for this to happen). BG’s father states that BG had provided the purchase price by paying a Mr Saldhana, who had paid the builders. BG’s father admitted that he had later sold the flat and had kept the proceeds. W: we also purchased a large three bedroomed property in Mumbai as our second home… We spent freely including on our American Express Centurion credit cards which are available only by invitation to high net worth individuals…. [H] had several Mercedes cars including a sports model H: Ashoka A. Again the property is in the name of my father. …My father purchased with his own funds and a contribution from joint family funds purchased it Bundle 1, p8, 736 1-609 BG2-333 8.4.1999 ENZO: letter AS to IMM BG1-3162 12.4.1999 Parabola Int Inc incorporated (in Mauritius) by IMM (allegedly) on behalf of Edward Shamutete R6 by H . H had PoA for ES - Bank account at Schroders, Geneva - Bank account at Paribas Guernsey established . ES declared as beneficial owner. Letters from H (AS) suggest that Parabola was in fact owned by The Lukonka Trust of which the sole beneficiary was ES The evidence of Mr Chaturvedi is that IMM provided documents at the time Merrill Lynch opened an account for Parabola in Jan 2000 identified the Husband as the beneficial owner of Parabola. This begs the question of whether forged documents showing ES were produced by H to others or whether the Husband somehow contrived to get IMM to send forged documents to Merrill Lynch.. 1A-179 BG1-3201 BG1-3201 1-687 ES says H formed two companies for him Parabola and Enzo and that he put funds $6m into the Parabola Schroders account from Citibank account he held in Switzerland. He says H held the bank statements in London along with other documents and he reviewed investment performance when he visited London. ES says the Enzo Schroders funds were subsequently transferred to Parabola (inferentially Schroders) He also says his wealth came from Shengo Holdings which produced and distributed beer and imported goods ES says his wealth came from Shengo Holdings and emerald trading and had increased from $1.7m to $17m over the period of 25 years The assets identified as part of Shengo do not correspond to any of the businesses ES speaks of in his statement which talks of transport and paint manufacture, lubricants, hire of cranes. The subsequent transfer from Enzo’s Schroders account to Parabola (ES says shortly afterwards but it is several months) and he says these funds were subsequently transferred to the Parabola account in Schroders. However the transfer from Enzo which occurs in Jan 2000 is from a Mauritian account operated in Enzo’s name by IMM not Schroders. The assertion he had no documents in relation to what would have been a very significant part (if not the bulk) of his wealth seems improbable and that he instructed H to hold them all at his office also seems unusual. 1A – 164 !A-164 1A- 167 1B-1430 ES “In contrast to the Schroders account the ML account was to be an investment account However documents sent by AS to ES suggest PNB, Schroders and ML were ALL investment portfolios and figures which don’t correspond to others. PNB: Inv said to be $6.876m but opening balance is $6.531m; Schroders: Inv said to be $6m but opening balance is $6.328m; ML: Inv said to be $2m opening balance is $1.968 (inc proceeds of 1 Trinity Court 1A-164 BG1-3227 12.04.1999 Miramar Trading Inc incorporated by IMM on H’s instructions allegedly on behalf of UM H holds the 2 Bearer Shares 1B-1392 13.4.1999 Beneficial Owner of Schroders bank account in name of Enzo Int Inc stated to be ES (Passport certified as true copy by H) ES says he used Schroders account via 2 credit cards and by directions to H BG1-3185 BG1-3184 1A-164 May 1999 JI becomes Governor of Delta State 1-775 June 1999 Miramar obtained by H on behalf of UM Paribas , Guernsey bank account set up for Miramar PS6/7 #15 BG1- 3477 4.6.1999 ES gives H PoA BG1-3178 4.6.1999 Payment by IMM to Hong Kong Shanghai Bank of £15,700 to an account in the name of Hemptons International R2 says this was made by him as H had registered a car in his name and the sale proceeds were paid to him. B2 - 283 05.06.99 BG states purchase of new India property – ‘Ashoka’ Flat (3 beds) in Versova, Mumbai – placed in BG’s father’s name and Odessa funds this purchase. BG1, p12 7.6.1999 Miramar – B/O Mr Mutate BG1-3477 8.6.1999 Shamutete: client details Signed by ES BG31 30.6.1999 IMM document: ENZO Doesn’t show where $2.594m came from This does not seem consistent with ES statement which says all funds came from his Swiss account with Citibank BG1-3266 12.7.1999 Shamutete: Letter to Paribas saying ES wants to move funds from Citibank Document identifies Mr Shamutete as B/O Beneficiary: Mr Edward Shamutete who has wide ranging interests in mining, trading (import/export). Owns majority shares in Shengo Holdings a company which has substantial consulting and agency business with Anglo-American and other large international companies. $7 million initial investment. Referred by Castle Grove Consulting Limited 1B-1349 1B -1425 12.7.1999 Mutati : AS letter of introduction to PNB 13.7.1999 $5.147m credited to Parabola BNP account ES says he arranged to pay $6,876,666 into this account. This he said derived from his business with Mr Rozan which grew from $1.7m to $17m over 25 years. He says he paid personal bills and drew cash by instructions to H Mr Shamutete’s W/S dated 29.01.16 at [15]:

“Apart from the USD $6 million or thereabouts held for me in the Parabola account with Schroders, I arranged for the payment of USD $6,876,666 into an account number GF820981 in the name of Parabola with a bank in London called Banque Paribas (Guernsey) Limited (“Paribas”). This was in July 1999 and I used this bank again at the suggestion of Mr Gohil.” 1-825 1A-164 1B-207 1A - 165 13.7.1999 $2.43m credited to Miramar BNP account The documents recorded that the funds would come from Citiank but they seem to have come from Chase Manhattan 1-825 1B -207 1B-1403 1B-1385 1B-1394 15.7.1999 Parabola account with Paribas (PNB) active [PS6/7, #8] PNB alleged to meet ES [PS6/7,#8 fn24] Shows Transfer in of $5,147m 1B-1444 15.7.1999 Miramar account at PNB active . Said to be an investment account and used to meet UM bills. (similiar to Parabola PNB account for ES) PNB alleged to meet UM $2.5m to be invested “Beneficiary: Mr Urbano MUTATI trading (import/export). Owns majority shares in Zambian consolidation co-a company which has substantial shareholding jointly with the government in mines. Referred by Castlegrove Consulting Ltd, Gibralter Opening balance of $2,430,830. The fact that 2 accounts were opened (or became active) on the same day suggests a link between the 2 and that new companies for 2 Zambian clients were arranged in a near identical manner points to a strong link. Is it simply that H decided to give identical advice which was accepted and implemented for two entirely separate clients or is there more to it? Neither Mr Shamutete or Mr Mutati give evidence of knowing each other or having any connection. No reference is made in the account opening documents to the funds emanating from gemstone trading with Mr Indrissa Senghor. The BNP records for Miramar and Parabola both state that they were referred by Castle Grove Consulting Ltd rather than Mr Gohil or Arlingtons Sharma which would suggest that the husband was operating in business entirely independently of Arlington Sharma with the possibility that Castle Grove would have received a referral fee. Ps6/7, #17 1B-1383 1B-1403 13.07.99 & 22.07.99 Under the Parabola guise, two tranches of money totalling $6,876,666 were credited to BNP Paribas in Guernsey. Bundle 1, p825 1B-14444 25.8.1999 Message: AS to ES collects £10k cash withdrawn from PNB authorised by Mr Gohil 1B-1408-10 30.9.1999 Parabola: ES is beneficial owner of Schroders account ‘Leopard’ BG1-3198 28.10.1999 Mutati: Golden Glass Discretionary Trust established BG1-3480 November 1999 Merrill Lynch / Parabola set up. Bundle 1, p626 BG1-3207 23.11.1999 ES: Attendance note of meeting with H Agenda Update and balances - Schroders - Paribas - Review of accounts - Merrill Lynch account - Signing LOW – Lukonka – Parabola - Update on Fazmac - Property - Power Project This would seem like a genuine Agenda – but there is no matching one for the initial meeting which led UM to instruct H. BG1-3199/20 24.11.1999 1 Trinity Court, 170A Gloucester Terrace, W2 sold. [PS6/7] Bill for AS shows sale but owner appears to be Chelston Corporation BG1-3206 26.11.1999 H opens bank account in name of Parabola Int Corp at Merrill Lynch 17P07426 and tells bank he is beneficial owner of Parabola. H subsequently uses this account to pay Visa card expenses [PS 6/7] H: My connection to the account was an authorised signatory ES says he instructed H to open an investment account for Parabola at ML and transferred $2m from an account he is not sure of. PS6/7 1B-64 1A-164 13.12.1999 Shamutete (Edward) passport issued. ZG90204. [Expires 12 Dec 2009]{ ID 200955-11-1 Certified as true copy by H BG1-3192 6 January 2000 BG opened a brokerage account in the name of Parabola International Corp. (“Parabola”) with Anil Chaturvedi at Merrill Lynch, in New York. The documents showed H as the beneficial owner of Parabola. The account Information Form shows the source of assets from H as 1)legal practice and 2) inheritance from father The Standard Facility Credit Proposal document says - B/O is Bhadresh Gohil - His annual income is $20m - His net worth is $100m Initial sums deposited $1.548m The documents clearly asset H as the owner of the funds and the provenance but the sums mentioned are not supported by any documents either at the time or which have been subsequently discovered. 2nd Statement of Oliver Wren p109-110 1-687 1B-384 BG1-3222 1B-369 /384 5.1.2000 H emails IMM to transfer funds onwards? He has redacted the first transfer What does this disclose? The missing sum is $165,706 BG1-3213 06.01.00 $1,539,000 transferred from an account in Mauritius (an IMM client account in the name of ‘Enzo’) to an account in the name of ‘Parabola’ opened with Merrill Lynch, New York. IMM notify AS of transfer of $1,539k (a sum of $165,706 goes missing elsewhere?) H informs ES that $1.548m deposited PS 6/7 #7 fn20] ES identifies Arlington Sharma documents which confirmed Enzo (which he was B/O) transferred $1.539m to Parabola Merrill Lynch account ES says $2m was transferred in – the documents suggest $1.539m The redactions made by H clearly hide a payment to another account which has not been traced and which H in evidence did not reveal – he claimed not to know what it concealed but as it was an Enzo account and thus linked to H and Mr Shamutete there could be no issue of ‘confidentiality’ of another client which H relied on frequently in answering questionnaires. Bundle 1, p825 BG1-3215 1A – 160 1A-164 29.2.2000 ML Parabola Balance $2,069m 1B- 431 22.3.2001 Email_ Mr Chaturvedi to Mr Gohil We shall start rebalancing yourportfolio one a rally starts 2-240 11.2.2000 Parabola ML account receives $399,990 allegedly the receipt of $400k sent by Arlington Sharma client account from sale of 1 Trinity Court. [PS/6/7 #7] As account shows transfer of $400,000 to Parabola ML The statement of Arlington Sharm suggests the $400k came in from the maturity of a deal NOT the sale of the house H notifies ES $418,000 sent. ES confirms he was owner of 1 Trinity Court, W2 and that he periodically visited London. The ML account at this time shows a total value 2,069,429 at end of period and value of $1,548925 at opening Why does ES not challenge the disparity with H? 1B- 432 BG1-3219 29 Feb 2002 Merrill Lynch - Portfolio value $2.069m Of this $399,990 came from a Wire Transfer on 11.2.2000. A further $1,539,000 came from Enzo via IMM on 6 Jan 2000 . The balance of $130,000 is not explained – it could be from return on the investments made since Jan 2000 although this would represent an annual rate of return of 75% odd. 1B - -325 1B- 431 BG1-3215 1.4.2000 (or 4.1.2000) Merrill Lynch: Application Form - Source of assets: legal practice and inheritance from father 1B-388 11.4.2000 Enzo account managed by IMM receives from AS - $634,028 and $700,000 ES “I do not know why Mr Gohil formed two companies but the fact is that he did although the monies paid by me in the name of Enzo with Schroders were shortly thereafter paid into my Parabola account and the Enzo account was closed. When I spoke to English police officer in Zambia in May 2012 I had forgotten about the existence of Enzo. “ What then happened to the $1.34m held by IMM in Mauritius for Enzo? How did he forget about it? The inference of his statement is all monies held by Enzo had been transferred to Parabola BG1-3228 1A-164 8.5.2000 Credit Facility Request by ML Says H has net worth of $100m and has income of $20m 1B-384 11.5.2000 ML Parabola balance $1.875m 1B-428 28.6.2000 ECS letter about 15 trusts they were invoicing for Suggests legitimate business activity BG1-2989 24.07.2000 H purchases Mercedes for £57,180 A sum of £57,199.92 is paid on 21.7.2000 from (possibly) Odessa account H says this was purchased for family H: The vehicle was purchased for £55,000 from joint family funds… it is used in my business and as a family car… the number plate was purchased for £4,600. It is owned by me H’s Partnership account shows a profit of £14,919 in the tax year 2000/01. His share of profit/loss for 5 years up to 2000/01 was at total £57,105 . The evidence suggests this was H’s vehicle not a family car. BG1-428 1B-273 BG1-12 BG2-333 1.8.2000 H to ES: Balance summary BG1-3240 17.8.2000 Attendance Note: 88 Sydney Street. Note records meeting with B Almquist, E Zvogbo, H and ‘HJB’. It records that BA wanted to transfer his ownership of SCI which held title to 88SS for reasons (which are not easy to understand but appear tax related and to avoid exploitation) and that EZ agreed (for a fee to be agreed) to the use of one of his companies to do this. This was achieved by the Sunfor Trust selling SCI (the bearer share) to Hempton International Limited (or Hempton International Holdings) and EZ/Hempton agreeing they would dispose of the property on BA’s instructions at any time. H said that BA was being subject to attempts to exploit him (he was an alcoholic) and that he wanted to put some distance between himself and his entitlement under the Sunfor Trust to 88SS and so the ‘purchase’ did not actually involve any transfer of funds to him or Hemptons/EZ acquiring the beneficial ownership of 88 SS The documentation tends to support a real transaction to Hempton International Holding Limited (a third variant) which was said to be a company incorporated in 1999 and which held other assets of Mr Zvogbo. It appears that BA agreed to pay £85,000 (by way of rental payments) in order to distance himself from ownership. The notes record that the purchase funds from Hempton would immediately be returned by BA/Sunfor. BG1-2542, 2544, 2546, 2570 Sept 2000 H : Devan started at Bickley Park School in December 2001, Keval started on 20 Sept 2000…. Both boys were enrolled to start at Cottesmore a boarding school in Surrey. The invoices suggest school fees of around £9k per annum for Deval and Kevval and £5,000 for Shivani BG2-319 25.10.2000 Lubbock Fine wrote to Bank to transfer funds in name of Quintock to HSBC Mautritius IMM (Ref Johnny Yen) This seems to be a transfer of funds from ) $366,714 which appears subsequently in BG1-3270/2-291 BG3517 1.1.2001 ECS: Imxal Discretionary Trust: invoice for services including Safe Deposit fee 2-315 17.01.2001 Email to H from Brad Walmsley Lombard Odier referring to him being continually on the move, to him being a private client, and him investing ‘your’ assets. 2-303 BG1.1351 29.2000 $2,086,000 with Merrill Lynch in H’s name 1B-431 2-236 15 March 2001 Sale of 88 Sydney Street by Sunfor Trust selling SCI to Hempton International Holdings for £1.1m The documentation tends to support a real transaction to Hempton International Holding Limited (a third variant) which was said to be a company incorporated in 1999 and which held other assets seemingly of Mr Zvogbo. It appears that BA agreed to pay £85,000 (by way of rental payments) in order to distance himself from ownership. The notes record that the purchase funds from Hempton would immediately be returned by BA/Sunfo, that BA would hold an undated Stock Transfer form signed by EZ which would then permit BA to require the bearer share in SCI to transferred to him (or another) What is unexplained is why Jerdan Inv Ltd weas involved as the monies seem to pass through a Jerdans Inv Ltd account with Schroders. The documents record the work of others within AS on the transaction and several third parties. The link to Hemptons that W relies on is that payment of £15,700 was authorised by BRG to an account held by IMM at HSBC in Mauritius in the name of Hempton International Limited - H said this was a repayment of some sort which seems unusual (and at 1B -75 suggests her allegation is fabricated ) and it may be there is another entity called Hempton International Ltd rather than Hempton International Holdings Limited. 2 – 271 BG1-2587,2617 14.3.2001 B Almquist issues instruction to wind up Sunfor Trust BG1-2586 23.3.2001 Merrill Lynch: Mr Chaturvedi emails H suggesting the ML portfolio is H’s personally 2-241 14.5.2001 UM: Payment of bills from Miramar in respect of bills associated with his home in London 1B - 1397 23.5.2001 Enzo: Funds received by IMM re - Doyle Investments Ltsd $130,521 - Naylor Holdings: $900,438 Other documents in what appears to be Mr Shamutete’shandwriting refer to these two entities as well as another Chelston Corporation and ask for the funds to be transferred to IMM Enzo. Given that Mr Shamutete says after the Enzo funds were transferred to ML Parabola (Jan 2000) that Enzo was closed the substantial Enzo activities subsequently do not fit with this account. BG1-3270 Bg1-3514 BG1-3264 4.6.2001 $3,084,905 received into AS Habib Bank from IMM but with no designated entity associated with it. The statement does not identify where these funds went to and whether they are relevant or not. BG1-3219 16.6.2001 ES: Letter handwritten to his accountants asking them to close acounts in names of Naylor and Dayle and to transfer the amounts to HSBC Mauritius, IMM account for ENZO These are not the origin of funds in the ENZO account which are much earlier June 2001 R2 says H pressured him to transfer Highlander into the joint names of R2, R3 and Imxal Discretionary Trust (based in Gibraltar) 1B-1293 1B1304 10.07.2001 EZ- Mr Sharma and H: EZ is proposing to buy a Hotel for $20m and is ‘touching’ friends ‘I am open to discussing business opportunities with you.’ The tone of the letter is not as undertaking legal work but on business. BG1-2337 18.7.2001 Bhadresh Gohil Funds Summary BGT2-290 August 2001 BG’s father leaves family and London home to permanently live in India (initially at ‘Ashoka’ flat, then purchases and moves to his own property). H : St July 2002: It is not correct to suggest that my father has permanently moved to India. My father prefers to spend his time in India, especially during the winter months and he has certainly not relinquished Highlander as his permanent home. This is a very different picture to that which emerges in the letter of 11.1.2002 Bundle 1, p8 13.8.2001 Rekha Yadav: report to ES and H about Fazmac - Board fees to BG (H) of $40,000 ($20k each) were not justified (suggests ES and H had initially invested $50k/70K) - Fin Managers suggests Salary of $20,000 each to ES/BG (H) were not ‘equitable’ “Let me know what you and Mr Shamutete decide”

The report suggests that RK is knowledgeable about business issue but is there to report to the owners of Fazmac who appear to be ES and BG. The sums she refers to as their investment and their fees would seem to be undisclosed assets. BG3-23-26 6.9.2001 ES and H write to BNP seeking transfer of $1.241m from Parabola account to Broadline International Limited This would support the contention that ES has an interest in the funds but is also a significant transfer out to another ‘unknown’ entity. 1B-1413 30.9.2001 ES writes to H to complain of performance of the BNP account The fax refers to a loss of over $1m although the total would seem to be much higher having regard to the opening balance BG1-3250 1.10.2001 Shamutete: UBP Records meetings between bank and H and ES inc on 18 Sept 2001 Suggests he lost $1.8m and said he couldn’t afford to have more than 30% of his holdings in equities The minutes would appear to be genuine and record ES’s displeasure at the losses on his accounts 1B-1427 8.10.2001 ES – Value of assets The value of ES’s holdings in companies totals about $2.36m. Asset value looks low compared to claimed value of bank holdings 1B-1428/9 11.01.02 BG in Mumbai. BG hand delivers a letter to his father (headed ‘Letter to the Father’ dated 03.12.01) stating that his father has illegally and fraudulently sold his [H’s] properties [Bhayander and Versova] and he requires his father to “immediately execute a Deed of Gift for both [the two India flats] back to me”… “I will be forced to find ALL your funds … the money you received from the freehold of 288/90 Lewisham High Street “If you want money please tell me how much” “I will protect my interest at whatever cost”. The letter suggests (a) H had purchased other properties in India (b) The funds in Odessa did not originate from R2 (c) He had access to significant funds 1B1294 1B - 1306 08.02.02 Power of Attorney granted by Miramar to BG. Bundle 1A, p179 2002 Mr Mutati agreed he would close the Miramar account with Paribas and transfer the USD $2 million funds to UBP. Bundle 1A, p183 15.2.2002 Parabola (ES) instruct PNB to close account and transfer $4.334m to Arlingtons Sharma client account [PS6/7, #8] This appears to be H doing this on behalf of ES 1B-1400 1B-1442 15.2.2002 Miramar: UM/BG give instructions to PNB to close account and remit funds of £1.963m to Arlington Sharma This seems to be sent on 4/5 March and a Handwritten addition counteracts instruction and says liquidate to cash The coincidence in timing of both the Parabola and the Miramar accounts being opened on the same day at PNB Guernsey in 1999 and being closed on the same day in 2002 with the funds being remitted to Arlingtons Sharma suggests a connection which might be they were beneficially both H’s or that the three had a connection which went beyond ES/UM independently being clients of H. The absence of any explanation by them of the connection is curious? 1B-1415 10.3.2002 Union Bank Privaire (UBP) account opened in London in name of Parabola, ES declared as beneficial owner [PS6/7, #9] ES says this account was used to pay his Amex from 2002-4. He says for many years he had no cause for complaint and In 2005 he agreed to transfer them to a Far East Bank. 1A-158 1A-165 March 2002 Mr Shamutete states in his W/S dated 29.01.16 that the US $6,876,666 “deposit made into the Parabola account with Paribas was subsequently moved from that bank to another bank in London called Union Bancaire Privee (“UBP”). This was done in March 2002. The reason for this was that my funds with Paribas had performed very badly.” The file notes and the fax suggest that significant losses were made. Bundle 1A, p165 10.3.2002 UBP for ES and Parabola ES is declared B/O 1B-829 10.3.2002 UBP account opened in London in name of Miramar with UM declared as the beneficial owner The Bank documentation [#6] does not refer to the bank having met Mr Mutati H was given complete authority over the account PS6/7, #18] 1B-882 1B-888 1.4.2002 Castlegrove bills Parabola for Management services for period 1 April 2002 -30 June 2002 OW4-393 9.4.2002 ES – bill payment authorised on Parabola account 1B -1414 11.4.2002 H leaves for Mumbai April 2002 VG discovers BG’s long-term extra marital affair with Nitu Gulab whilst BG and his mother were in India. Bundle 1, p9 20.04.02 VG and BG attend a social function. BG states that he is the most successful of all attendees; claims his net worth is over £10 million; reassures VG that there is no need to worry about finances ‘ever’. H says they attended a function separately on 21.4.2002 and did not speak The timing of this alleged declaration of wealth just prior to separation is a remarkable coincidence Bundle 1, p9 21.4.02 Separation (W temporarily leaves family home with the children, to recover from the shock and trauma of the discovery with only weekend essentials ) H: W took £12,000 in cash when she left 2-271 – H emails from Zambia – presumably would have lap-top with him? BG2- 326#44 04.05.02 BG recruits full-time live in Indian maid/housekeeper. Bundle 1, p9 W: H forced us out of the matrimonial home without any concern for where we would go. He cut off the finances and amongst other things, stopped paying school fees. The only place we could go was to my parents in North London where we ended up living for over seven years. H: the only addition was a maid 1-610 BG2- 321#22 7.5.2002 Miramar PNB closes 1B-1405 07.05.02 BG moved $4,334,995 to the Arlingtons’ Client Account (allegedly on behalf of ES/Parabola). Not clear why it doesn’t occur until 3 months after the instruction was given. Bundle 1, p825 1B-1442 07.05.2002 Parabola PNB account ceases to be active PS6/7 #8 16.05.02 UBP Parabola account receives $4.309m from Arlingtons Sharma client account. BG moved $4,309,932 from Arlingtons to UBP, still in the name of Parabola. UBP B/O form completed by bank – H signed it. Bundle 1, p825 16.5.2002 UBP Miramar account receives $1.938m from Arlington Sharma client account (Said to be an investment account and used to pay bills on behalf of UM 1-825 May 2002 (no specific date referenced) BG blocks VG’s Amex Credit Card – her only source of funds. Bundle 1, p9 17.5.2002 Parabola UBP bank receives $4,309,932 1B- 842 17.5.2002 UBP receives $1.938m from Barclays – ref BBG (no bank statement from AS account to verify) 1B-896 VG’s serves divorce petition: Adultery and Unreasonable behaviour (including coercive & controlling behaviour, domestic abuse and physical violence). Bundle 1, p9 25.05.02 BG is advised of VG’s intention to return to FMH to enable children to resume schooling and that they live separately in the house pending divorce. - BG refuses this (letter dated 30.05.02), refusing W and children access to home or their personal belongings. Bundle 1, p9 06.06.02 VG commences her application for ancillary relief. Bundle 1, p9, 652 10.06.02 VG granted Legal Aid for financial proceedings Bundle 1, p9 14.06.02 BG acknowledges the existence of Odessa account – states that the balance is £590,000. VG sends laptop back to BG via solicitors and serves all information she has collected and may want to rely on by way of Hildebrand disclosure. Bundle 1, p9 24.6.2002 AS instructs UBP to pay bills for ES from Parabola account (Electricity and Amex) also – payments to South Lodge residents association These evidence bills being paid by ASS on behalf of ES sometimes vias Companies 1B-844 1B-850 1B-871 28.6.2002 H’s Response to W’s Petition (denial of adultery and behaviour) and he Cross-Petition’s 02.07.02 BG’s application for injunction re: laptop Bundle 1, p9 03.07.02 Ex-Parte Order made by HHJ Karsten granting H injunction re: laptop Bundle 1, p9 09.07.02 Tranche 1: BG’s mother (Kamla Gohil) receives £50,000 from Odessa. £49,000 is almost immediately transferred from her HSBC a/c *51500767 to HSBC savings a/c *31418408. Bundle 1, p9 10.07.02 1st Affidavit of Means – BG’s first formal disclosure of Odessa Management accounts with purported balance of £509,613 (claims 1/3 share). Bundle 1, p9 10.7.2002 H swears- 1st Affidavit of Means. First formal disclosure of Odessa Man accounts with purported balance of £509,613 (claims only 1/3 share H says he has no beneficial interest in or personal access to any of the accounts. 1-676 15.07.02 BG instructs new solicitors, S Merali & Co – W1. Bundle 1, p9 15.07.02 Letter written by ANIL CHATURVEDI (Financial Advisor, Senior VP of Merrill Lynch & Co, New York) to S.MERALI & CO (solicitors acting on behalf of BG in divorce proceedings):

“BG is only a power of attorney on the above account, and not a beneficial owner. The instructions relating to operations on the account are received directors of the company and not from BG”

. Subsequently in statements obtained by the CPS and used in the Confiscation proceedings AC said that H was the beneficial owner of Parabola and a successful and sophisticated businessman. He said H had told him to stop referring to ‘your’ and to use ‘our mutual client’ and not to disclose any information about the Parabola account. AC’S affidavit dated 13.03.09 stated that the representations which he made in that letter “were made at BG’s request”. The evidence of Mr Chaturvedi would be admissible given the US Department of Justice has consented to the use of MLA material in these proceedings: 2nd Statement of Oliver Wren p113 1-688 17.07.02 Consent Order made by DJ Brasse. Re: Children – residence to VG, contact and schooling agreed. Bundle 1, p9 23.7.2002 Brown Shipley ask H to repay the £52,000 borrowed The Husband has not as far as I can tell ever produced the Brown Shipley investment account against which the loan was secured. The statements which are monthly are numbered 47 by this date which would suggest that the account had been open with Brown Shipley for some 4 years prior to this and their letter at BG1-1292 refers to an old account 010578.001 which was opened on 19.1.1998 which would have been in the Husbands name but which was not referred to in His Form E. The answer given by Brown Shipley at BG1-1303 is very specific in its language and emanates from the Jersey branch of Brown Shipley not the London branch and the Soc Gen slip at BG1-1315 says there are no accounts under the name of Gohil which given the usual use of entities would be no surprise and the subsequent letter at BG1 -1318 confirms no account was held in the name of Gohil but an account was held with Jersey with the number provided which was closed on 7.9.2005 which confirms an account must have been held in the name of a different entity. This is an example of what the Wife would say that the trail ends in a dead end. BG1-1293 23.7.2002 AS instruct UBP to make payments from Miramar to pay bills on UM property These documents support the contention that UM was a genuine person and that As were paying bills on his behalf by instructing UBP to make the payments 1B-897-9 31.07.02 Net value of Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): $975,253. Bundle 3, p6 31.07.2002 ORDER (DJ Bassett-Cross) MPS £6,000pm including provision of £1,000 for legal fees H undertaking to pay school fees as and when they fall due 16.08.02 BG’s Form E states that the Odessa account or accounts held approximately £509,000 and BG’s interest was put by him at £170,000. Balance of the funds in the account were said to be held for BG’s father and mother. Bundle 1, p675 23.08.2002 Consent order DJ berry removes reference to adultery of H occurring at ‘said womans home at 17 Grosvenor Square, London W1’ This address is Ms Gulabs August 2002 VG and children move out of VG’s parents’ home into rented accommodation at 2 Upper Hampstead Walk, London, NW3 1DE. BG having indicated that he would pay the deposit and one month’s rental in advance. Bundle 1, p9 16.08.02 1st Form E Exchange. H’s Form E No interest in Highlander ior Indian properties Only significant capital asset was Odessa: £170k being 1/3 of £509,000 Arlington Sharma – no value 2.17 – no other assets outside the jurisdiction held on his behalf/ Net income estimated at £40k (later said drawings were £12,334 The contrast between the fees paid for the childrens education and his stated income is significant. Bundle 1, p10 1-675 1B-713 23.08.02 Consent Order made by DJ Berry. Main suit granted. VG’s petition dated 20.05.02 amended – (a) particulars of unreasonable behaviour removed, (b) suit to proceed on adultery. Bundle 1, p10 September 2002 Children resume their schooling. Bundle 1, p9 01.09.02 Letter from Kamla Gohil to BG’s father. KG writes to BG’s father that payment for his share of Highlander will be settled by BG after BG and VG’s divorce is concluded. She advises him to lay low in the meantime. Photocopy of bankers draft for £100,000 drawn on Lombard Odier provided 1B -1308 2-302 06.09.02 BG serves Questionnaire, Concise Statement of Issues, Chronology and Form G. Bundle 1, p10 16.09.02 Kamla Gohil hand delivers her letter on BG’s father in India. Enclosed: Copy of bankers draft for £100,000 from ‘Lombard Odier and Cie’ – in respect of buying out his share of Highlander and telling him that “Bhadresh has sent you the money”…”Varsha has started a divorce case…and until the case is done and finished I will not be able to do this work”. H says he borrowed the £100,00 from a friend Dr Pemsingh and that enquiries have disclosed no account held by him with Lombard Odier The subsequent use of a bankers draft drawn on Lombard Odier for £100,000 to buy out R2’s share in Highlander would tend to support. H’s Agreement with Mr Pemsing (which is not witnessed by anyone) says that $5,000 is payable forthwith on the agreement being signed. But H said it wasn’t paid as the draft was never used although this examples how the Husbands case that documents don’t lie is built on foundations of sand. If $5,000 was payable forthwith on the agreement being signed it must have been paid – H’s answer that it wasn’t was given I am satisfied because if $5,000 was paid he would have been unable to explain where such a large sum was paid from (large given his claim of financial hardship at that time). The evidence supports the conclusion that this document is not genuine. This e-mail is ‘Hildebrand’ given its timing. H accepts it is admissible. The handwritten letter in the body refers to the hearing date of 20.9.2002. Bundle 1, p10 B2-298/300 18.09.02 VG serves Hildebrand disclosure to BG. Bundle 1, p10 18.09.02 Telephone conversation between parties’ solicitors re: H’s means and true ownership of Odessa – solely BG’s. Bundle 1, p10 20.09.02 - First Appointment Order made by DDJ Gilbert. Bundle 1, p10 20.09.02 - Order made by HHJ Karsten KC varying the injunction of 03.07.02 to allow for disclosure of documents to forensic accountant and for VG to use in these proceedings. Bundle 1, p11 15.10.02 Tranche 2 - £178,000 transferred from Odessa account at Schroders, Zurich to Kamla Gohil’s a/c at HSBC *51500767. From that sum £30,000 is paid by the mother to BG’s solicitors on a/c of his costs ‘after’ service of the Mareva. Bundle 1, p11 17.10.02 BG’s 2nd Affidavit of Means – no reference to Kamla Gohil’s withdrawal of funds. Bundle 1, p11 25.10.02 VG attends FMH with police to collect her personal belongings, refused entry. BG gives assurance that he intends to preserve his share of Odessa for children. (In 2004, BG states a/c is closed.) Bundle 1, p11 29.10.02 VG’s ex-parte application – Order before DJ Redgrave that BG’s father, mother and Odessa Management be joined as parties, BG forbidden from disposing of or otherwise dealing with funds held at Schroders for Odessa save for payment of maintenance as ordered on 31.07.02. Bundle 1, p11 30.10.02 Penal Notice of Kirkwood J. VG’s Without-Notice ‘Mareva Injunction’ – re Odessa – Order made by Kirkwood J directs BG, BG’s parents and Odessa not to dispose, sell, charge, diminish or otherwise deal with the funds held in their names at Schroders Zurich and Geneva (the Odessa Accounts). Order does not prohibit BG from withdrawing funds to pay maintenance to VG pursuant to the Order of DJ Bassett-Cross dated 31.07.02. Bundle 1, p406-407 31.10.02 Order of Kirkwood J – Freezing Injunction re Odessa and Directions granted to VG, without notice application. Bundle 1, p13 04.11.02 BG’s solicitor receives £30,000 fees from Kamla Gohil’s HSBC account (later frozen by Sumner J on 12.11.02) to continue son’s legal representation. N.B. Affidavit of Kamla Gohil:

“It was always intended that my son would reimburse this amount to me once Schroders were able to remit funds without losses on the account.”

Bundle 1, p13 1B-995 14.11.02 Order of Sumner J – re: Mareva – Odessa. BG, BG’s parents and Odessa not to dispose or deal with funds in Odessa or HSBC save to discharge school fees together with extras and maintenance. Bundle 1, p13 09.12.02 Castlegrove Inc (“Castlegrove”) incorporated in the BVI. (Subsequently acquired by Rekha Yadev in May 2003) Bundle 1, p816 1B-77 1B-583 1C-61 21.01.03 Order of Singer J – re: Mareva – Odessa and directions re disclosure. Directed that Odessa remains frozen, save VG’s maintenance payments and VG permitted to draw £250pwk for her living expenses and legal fees until the conclusion of ancillary relief proceedings. Bundle 1, p402-405 03.02.03 BG’s Affidavit re beneficial interest in ‘Highlander’ – claims ‘no interest’. N.B. Contrary to BG’s ‘Letter to the Father’. Bundle 1, p14 18.2.2003 Castlegrove applies to open NatWest Gibralter account with Lyndsay Smallbone as owner. This application is refused . H authenticates passport of LS #170 1-817 11.03.03 VG’s affidavit sworn re claim for beneficial interest in ‘Highlander’ (promissory estoppel). Relied on promises by BG’s parents that in consideration of BG’s contribution to the family business and ongoing expenses that the house would be gifted to them. They acted to their detriment by investing considerable sums refurbishing and extending it. Re Odessa – parents at most contributed maximum £22,000. BG and VG provided the balance. VG contends that funds in Odessa belong in their entirety to BG and VG. Bundle 1, p14 13.03.03 Courvoisier and Cie – Dominic Dzuirzynski write to BG blocking the Odessa a/c due to a “dispute between beneficiary owner of account as to the disbursements taking place”. Bundle 1, p14 19.3.2003 Castlegrove (billing file) ECS Discussed with H transfer of 2 shares to ‘L (Lombard?) Odier’ 1C-83 20.3.2003 H’s application (returnable on 21.5.03) for downward variation of MPS (reason: his change in circumstances. H ceases making MPS payments. 24.3.2003 Castlegrove – ECS discuss with H update on portfolio transfer from Lombard Odier 1C - 83 28.3.2003 DECREE NISI PRONOUNCED 31.03.2003 R3 Affidavit - She owns Highlander jointly with H’s father They are responsible for mortgage and utility bills until he left on 1 August 2001, but he left money for payment of mortgage pending his return ( contradicted in her own subsequent Statement of Truth in 2006 May 2003 Castlegrove Inc: Correspondence between H and ECS over concerns Nat West raised about Lyndsey Smallbone and ‘BG said may change BO (beneficial owner) 1-818 1C-84 8.5.2003 Castlegrove: Rekha becomes shareholder of Castelgrove 1C-1024 08.05.2003 Castlegrove beneficial ownership changes from (in effect) Lyndsay Smallbone to Shrimati Rekha Yadav (H’s sister) 1000 shares were transferred from ECSI Trustees (Gibralter) to ECSI Nominees (BVI) - 88 Sydney Street + Foxtons rental acc - Raj Classic - Julius Baer acc - State bank of Mauritius account H was in communication with administrators about changing beneficial ownership (entry 14.5)because NatWest had declined to open a Castle Grove account because Lindsay small bone had been linked to a fraud case. 1-817 1C-84 H’s case at Confiscation Order was #171 BG also relied on Mr. Wacher tracing funds originating prior to the relevant date enabling him to maintain that nothing came to it that could be traced back to Nigeria. Mr. Ferguson adopted those findings and commented regarding the commercial activities involving third parties in which Castlegrove was engaged that based on the documentation it did not appear to be a sham. Addressing the prosecution’s submission that Castlegrove had been created to launder the proceeds of D's criminal activities BG retorted that the prosecution provided no indication as to the nature of the criminal activities with every financial entry supported by contemporaneous third-party documentation underpinned by years of multiple third-party regulatory and compliance checks together with a fully documented history of recorded source(s) of funds. In short BG submitted that Castlegrove had absorbed no proceeds of crime in its accounts. 1-818 19.5.03 ECS note (Castlegrove) ‘sent reminder by email re transfer of ownership 1C-85 19.5.2003 Castleelgrove applies to open accounts with Natwest Gibralter. Activities described as Advisory and Management Consultancy Services in respect of corporate acquisition. Rekha Yadav was identified as the beneficial owner. An opening deposit was to be made by Parabola 1-817 20.05.03 Messrs Merali and Co no longer represent BG – BG acting in person. Bundle 1, p15 27.5.2003 ECS: Castlegrove ‘email to BG to chase Indemnity to close old/and update on new re a/c opening 1C-85 June 2003 Computer Expert Report: confirms no documents presented for inspection had been tampered with by the W. ‘the Letter to the Father’ submitted by W was the original extracted from the H’s laptop. H’s version was not found on the laptop at all Summer 2003 Children’s schools notify W of non-payment of fees- notice that they can’t return unless fees are paid 14.07.03 Dawson Cornwell stop acting for VG – non-payment of fees. Bundle 1, p15 18.07.03 Two Orders of Mr Stephen Bellamy KC sitting as a DHCJ -2nd Order states BG is restrained from disposing of his Mercedes or proceeds thereof until 1.8.03. Bundle 1, p16 28.07.2003 ECSI applies for Natwest IOM Bank $ (40197303) & £ (40179046) accounts for Castlegrove Inc ‘underlying clients’ Ms Yadav and H. Expected turnover $100,000 from ‘invoicing clients’ . In due course $59k from a Parabola account and Miramar is credited The connection between H, Ms Yadav and Parabola and Miramar all tend to suggest H might be the beneficial owner of all entities – otherwise H is mixing funds with no apparent link and in the CO ES and UM denied any link with Castlegrove. 1-817 1C-63 30.07.03 Order of Bennett J by consent – Freeze-Injunction of Mercedes S Class Car. Bundle 1, p16 31.7.2003 Castlegrove invoices Parabola,Miramar, Jerdan and Cetus $68,124 + £2000 for Management services. H approves all invoices. Payment to IoM Bank ECS International Clients Account OW4-375-403 06.08.03 VG forced to move back with children to live with her parents in Finchley - unable to pay rent due to non-compliance by BG of MPS order. Bundle 1, p16 11..8.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank £2,500 ‘cash to Bhadresh’ 1C-130 13.8.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank £4,000 ‘cash to Bhadresh’ 1C-130 14.8.03 ECS: Castlegrove; Note re transfer of Castlegrove to IoM 1C-86 6.10.2003 Castlegrove- Odessa – ECS Billing note about discussion with H on how to transfer Odessa to Castlegrove 1C- 87 15.10.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5k cash to H H said this was Rekha asking for cash. 1C-117(111) 1C-130 OE 21.10.2003 Castelgrove invoices Parabola, Miramar, Jerdan and Cetus $69,374 + £2,000 H approves all invoices. H approves all invoices. Payment to IoM Bank ECS International Clients Account: (9545) 40042504. This is not the same account that is referred to in HHJ Tomlinsons judgment at #174 [1-822] but is probably the ECS account which then moves the money on to the ECS Castlegrove accounts OW4 - 381 4.11.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5,000 to H by courier 1C-119 11.11.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5,000 to H by courier 1C- 121 17.11.2003 FA Cup tickets bought in auction by H for £1600 Also payments to Annabel for £500 1C - 90 10.12.2003 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5,000 to H by courier 1C-123 11.02.04 BG’s Affidavit sworn – BG stated that his capital account with Arlington Sharmas was overdrawn by approx. £220,000 and that there were additional liabilities owed by the partnership. Bundle 1, p675 19.3.2004 H client is Bernie Ecclestone BG1-3004 30.03.2004 Castlegrove Inc opens Julius Baer account [PS 5/8 #9] Bundle 1, p626, 821 31.3.2004 Castlegrove: Julius Baer account: Rekha Yadav declared to be BO BG3-184 OW4 08.04.2004 Castlegrove ECS IoM (NW) transfers to $150,000 to Castlegrove account at Julius Baer $1,035,950 transferred in subsequently at Hs order 1-819 16.02.04 VG’s affidavit – seeks inter alia that: Maintenance is paid from HSBC accounts (original Odessa funds), Kamla Gohil be required to repay funds drawn from HSBC a/cs to Odessa, Kamla Gohil be dismissed from these proceedings. Bundle 1, p16 7.3.2004 Miramar: Castlegrove Inc invoice to Miramar for $3,886.50 OW4 - 375 8.3.2004 Letter: AS-BA about him wanting to move BG1-2664 31.3.2004 H asked to sign PoA for Castlegrove Inc Julius Baer acc 31.03.04 Rekha Yadav established as beneficial owner of Castlegrove Inc. 28.4.2004 Fougeres: £4,000 transferred from Parabola to establish Trust 1B-311 6.4.2004 B Almquist to buy 30 Bramcote road for £595,000 BG1-2710 19.4.2004 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5,000 to H by courier 1C-125 19.04.04 & 20.04.04 Expert Witness Statement – Julia Walker. Bundle 1B, p1126, Bundle 1B, p1126 26.4.2004 Castlegrove: ECS IoM bank to send £5,000 to H by courier 1C-127 29.4.2004 Letter from Siddique – BG1- 2075 W says that this contradicted what Mr G Snr said to her earlier in April and what he had said in his 2007 Affidsavit BG1 2075 30.04.04 VG’s ancillary relief application dealt by a final consent order made by Baron J: [1] “The Petitioner accepting that Odessa Management Limited is and always has been beneficially owned equally by the First, Second and Third Respondents.” [2] “The Petitioner accepting that the Odessa Management Limited funds are and were predominantly capital funds generated by family investments outside the United Kingdom and not belonging or owed to Messrs Arlington Sharmas”. [3] “All parties agreeing that the property known as and situate at Highlander, 158, Leesons Hill, Chislehurst, Kent is legally and beneficially owned by the Second and Third Respondents and that neither the Petitioner nor the First Respondent has or has had any beneficial interest in that property”. [5] “The Petitioner accepting that the property known as and situate at Flat 1002, Ashoka A, Paanch, Tantra Road, Versova, India was at all times beneficially owned by the Second Respondent and that the property known as and situate at Divine Sheraton Plaza Wing B, No 33 3rd Floor, Jesal Park, Bhayander (East) India is and has at all material times been beneficially owned by the Second and Third Respondents.” Recital [14] to the

order

“the [wife] believes that the [husband] has not provided full and frank disclosure of his financial circumstances (although this is disputed by the [husband], but is compromising her claims in the terms set out in this consent order despite this, in order to achieve finality.” BG’s presentation of his resources alleged that he had no interest in the flat in Bhayander, he never had an interest in the flat in Ashoka and that he had no interest in the proceeds of its sale. Bundle 1, p81 – 85 Bundle 1, p736 12.5.2004 Castlegrove: $97,230 transferred to Julius Baer account from Pictet and Cie account a/c in RY’s name- which had originated in a Lombard Odier account 1-823 #179 24.5.2004 Sydney Street to be marketed BG1-2670 17.06.04-20.06.04 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426) – first visa expenditure evidenced (traced back solely to BG): Expenditure by BG: In New York $2,473.69. (BG abroad – 16-22 June 2004). Bundle 3, p7 16.07.2004 - MLA document: H meets Chris Bolt of ECS I (IoM) . ‘He confirmed that he was the beneficial owner of Castlegrove Inc. The company Is used for invoicing the fund management in respect of various of his client. - H’s document: H meets Chris Bolt and confirms Mrs Yadav is the beneficial owner of Castlegrove Inc 1C-62 BG3-170 20.7.04 DECREE ABSOLUTE pronounced 31.7.2004 Castlegrove: Julius Baer has $3.3m in it (circa) 1C-149 24.8.2004 Fougeres Trust set up by Clanbrassil in Mauritius. Sole beneficiary identified as Prabhdayal Sodhi. D McCann of Clanbrassil subsequently was convicted of offences linked to H and Ibori Set up to acquire 88 Sydney Street. 1-860 1B-91 and 486 BG1-2865 1B-306 31.8.2004 Survey on 88 Sydney Street for the Trustees of the Fougeres Trust There had been a rapid move to Fougeres purchasing the property. There is no indication on the file that H informed Mr Almquist that it was a company linked to him (Castlegrove – via his sister) that was the purchaser BG1-2693 17.9.2004 H writes to B Almquist about - Sale of Sydney Street and - Purchase of Burdett Avenue - BG1-2731 27.9.2004 Sunfor Comm Inc release Mr Alquist from the Tax Deed on the basis that £234,000 of the purchase price is received by SCI BG1-2744 30.9.2004 Letter; H to B Almquist: its contents contain warnings about non-disclosure of issues but H does not disclose his interest in Fourgeres/Castelgrove. Tax issues raised - Personal tax liabilities of £234,000 - Possible £290,000 corporation tax BG1-2749 30.9.2004 DEED; Castlegrove and Fougeres - Fougeres acquires SCI - Castlegrove provides ‘mortgage of £142,500 - Fougeres provides the property as security and has no interest in it save as nominee - Fougeres seeks to acquire SCI and its tax losses, Castlegrove the property Mr Sodhi in his April 2013 statement says he has no knowledge of Sunfor, 88 Sydney Street, Bryan Alquist, Danny McCann or the Fougeres Trust, had never instructed Alexander Marks solicitors (Fougeres solicitor) but did know H through the Indian community and has used him to certify his passport to open bank accounts. He confirms his email address is not that used in connection with the purchase psodhi1000@hotmail .com. He also said he had nothing to do with the renting of the property or the tax litigation. BG1-2812 1B-307 30.9.2004 Buyers solicitors (Alexander Marks) confirms to Mr McCann - Purchase price of the bearer share is £1.45m - Personal tax of £234,000 will be responsibility of seller - Corporation tax of £270,000 will be returned by the seller In effect BA was receiving £504,000 less from the purchase price as the monies were retained to pay tax liabilities BG1-2761 1.10.2004 Completion Invoice - Sale price £1,450,000 - Confirms purchaser’s solicitors retained £504,000 in relation to tax liabilities - Mr Almquist gets property Burdette Ave) worth £585,000 + £308,000 cash The totality of the documentation supports the conclusion that on balance of probabilities it was this transaction that transferred the ownership of 88 SS from Mr Almquist to the Husband, albeit via a convoluted mechanism which formally transferred the share in SCI to the Fougeres Trust where Fougeres was purely a nominee for Castlegrove. It is not clear how Fougeres solicitors were instructed although obvious from the correspondence they felt they had been misled as to the nature of the transactions and the costs involved. The subsequent statement of Mr Sodhi and the Recital on the order of Moylan J of 21.2.17 make absolutely clear that he claimed not to have been involved in any way with the purchase of 88SS/Fougeres and the STR Report of Copex makes clear they had never met Mr Sodhi and had lost such email contact they had with him after H was imprisoned hence they concluded that he likely was not involved. The evidence supports the conclusion on balance of probabilities that the Husband spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the sale of 88 SS to obtain it for a much reduced price if the tax liabilities could be fended off or set off against a profit elsewhere and that in any event it would enable him to secure a valuable property onshore using Castlegrove funds and to secure it in a way which shielded the true ownership by misusing Mr Sodhi/Fougeres as a front for Castlegrove/himself. The husbands assertion that Mr Sodhi was himself a disreputable and untrustworthy character (based on the Court of Appeals aside) does not put him in same category of dishonesty as the Husband. That is all to some extent in any event a red herring as the deed makes clear that the Fougeres Trust in fact has no interest in 88SS anyway but that would not be known to anyone without access to the Deed. BG1-2831/2832 1B307 Oct 2004 DS George -Smart 88 Sydney Street - Occupied by Bryan Almquist - Sold by sale of bearer share in Sunfor (transferred?) to Fougeres Trust (B/O Prabhydal Sodhi) - H said to act for Almquist - Alleged 88 SS sold at undervalue by H acting for BA/Hemptons at price of £1.452m H states in 23.01.25 statement at [64] that the Fougeres Trust was “the documented buyer in this transaction. Contrary to his claimed, independent trust records clearly confirm that Mr.Sodhi was, in fact, both the protector and a beneficiary of the trust, alongside his children.” The timing of the transaction would seem to straddle the period during which the Ancillary Relief case was moving towards a final hearing which would give H a very strong motive to suppress any involvement of his name with property ownership. The availability of substantial funds if he did purchase it would indicates substantial wealth from another source; not disclosed in AR or to HMRC 1-860 1B-74 01.10.04 BG states that “Sunfor Commercial Inc (BVI) and its assets are owned and claimed by Castlegrove Inc., which acquired them on 1 October 2004.” Bundle 1B, p73GO 5.10.2004 Fougeres write to AS - They release B Almquist from the corporation tax liability – and ask to return £234k to their client - No release of BA from personal tazx BG1-2909 26.10.04 Kamla Gohil states there was a transfer for £148,000 from her HSBC account (*51500767) to Odessa Management Limited. Bundle 1A, p198 2004 NOTES OF H: These are probably later in 2005 1B -254-259 14.1.2005 BG first visit to Nigeria. BG states the Client was ADC Airlines Plc. Not sure this can be correct if he was in London night after? BG1, P28 15.1.2005 H throws a lavish 40th birthday party at newly opened ‘Frankies’; Marco Pierre White restaurant in Knightsbridge with champagne reception and live band with over 150 guests from worldwide W’s documents at £20k + VAT seems more likely than the £3k invoice to Arlingtons Sharmas BG1-3661-3 20.1.2005 Castlegrove: ECS ask for POA to H to be drawn up . 1C-64 February ‘05 H instructs W to locate private schools for all three children again. H gives assurance that he will pay the fees and extras 24.03.2005 Subject Access Request: In relation to NCIS : W’/H brother in law submits document to NCIS alleging H and his 2 sisters including B-in-Laws wife(partner) were signatories on a Lombard Odier account with $4m in it B2- 309 Mar 2005 Parties view new schools Mid-2005 BG has been said to have been introduced to, and started assisting, Mr Ibori. Introduced by BG’s client, Mr Victor Attah (Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria from 1999 to 2007). Bundle 1, p674, 679 1.4.2005 Indictment start of criminality 13.4.05 Keval and Shivani are enrolled at Devonshire House Prep School ( Hampstead) The source of funds or the improvement in the Husbands finances is not visible. 21.4.2005 Sima Sud emails sisters about H. The content seems genuine and part of it implies she and another sister were named on an account which was the Husbands and which if it were discovered she would lose her career. States that H bought all his sister Rolexes to thank them and SS says if he had bought Rekha 10 Rolexes it wouldnt have been enough for what she had done. The content and tone seem genuine and the implications for her career as a solicitor and the level of ‘remuneration’ suggested both strongly support unlawful acting in relation to very substantial sums 1B-1237 29.4.2005 ES says he was provided by Arlingtons Sharmas with balances for the Parabola accounts at UBP, Merrill Lynch and Shroders and saw them when in London in June 2005 1A-159 Mid May2005 BG has been said to have been introduced to, and started assisting, Mr Ibori. Introduced by BG’s client, Mr Victor Attah (Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria from 1999 to 2007). Bundle 1, p674, 679 Bundle 1B, p68 25.07.05 BG assisted JI and others to purchase the C604 at a cost of $20 million. Bundle 1, p787 26.7.2005 UM instructs UBP to liquidate funds 1B- 902 29.7.2005 H transfers $4,774,815 from the Indictment fraud to Parabola) account at Schroder (emanates from Stanhope) and then transferred it onwards on 26 August 2005 or Sept 2005 This would taint that account but IF the funds were transferred out again what was left would not be proceeds of crime. 1B-205#195 1B-147 1A - 170 31.07.2005 H takes all three children, his girlfriend and her two children on three-week multiple destination luxury no expense spared holiday (Las Vegas, Caribbean cruise including Barbados and then to Florida Keys/ Miami 02.08.05 – 18.08.05 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in Las Vegas, Florida - $12,775.41. (BG abroad 31.07.05 – 20.08.05). H: it was a company account… I was involved with Shengo… I was a consultant … Parabola was the banking side of the business… Shengo was the operational side… banking was done by Parabola… you get different segments away from each other… Parabola had no commercial card on Shengo only ones for Mr Shamutete.. Parabola ML was corporate account for Parabola… the business side of Shengo we saw yesterday and you see the commercial activities and the contracts and the activities are under Shengo and Parabola is the banking arm so in terms of my work for Shengo I didn’t charge fees but I took it out as consulting fees from the other. Shengo is Zambian .. I cant be paid in their currency….. I didn’t collect my fees on a lump sum basis. If this was not his beneficially how could he justify using it for personal expenses? His answer is a good example of how he obfuscates. Bundle 3, p7 3-146 Aug 2005 Withdrawals of around $9,500 in cash in Las Vegas whilst on holiday with the children H’s explanaton that he was able to charge consultancy fees on the account and this was him doing that. This seems most improbable – there is no document that suggests he could use the credit card for his own leisure. It suggests a very relaxed attitude. Th statenebnt statements were hidden in a void – was this the account that was Hs and others were not 3-146 2.9.2005 H establishes B/O of Pictet and Cie account H signed documents which are misleading/untrue on his own case and seemed very relaxed about it 1B-906, 907, 908 07.10.05 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in Hollywood – Florida, $204. (BG abroad – 05.10.05 – 14.10.05). Bundle 3, p8 4.11.2005 ES gives written instructions to UBP to close Parabola account and transfer funds to Pictet & Cie, Singapore a/c K888156 (Parabola) [PS6/7,#9] The account was used between May 2002 and November 2005 allegedly as an investment account and to pay bills on a property allegedly owned by ES at 36 South Lodge, Circus Road, NW8 The letter has ES name and address on it in Zambia and is addressed to UBP but is sent from the Arlington Sharma Fax. It purports to bear Mr Shamutete’s signature and is countersigned by H 1A-158 1B-879 4.11.2005 UM (Miramar) gives written instructions to UBP to close account and remit all funds to Pictet & Cie, Singapore K888156 (MIRAMAR) The remitting of 2 separate tranches of funds from separate UBP accounts to a single account at Pictet which was identified differently (Parabola/Miramar) in instructions sent on the same day and so allegedly separate legal entity funds said to be beneficially owned by separate individuals were mixed in one account identified as beneficially owned by H could strongly suggest they had originally been held by Parabola/Miramar/ES/UM as nominees for H. The fact that after this transfer there was no updating by H of ES or UM in the way that the documents suggest happened before the transfer is odd. ES in his statement jumps from 2005 to receiving a call in 2008 from the police and says nothing about the intervening period and how his assets were being dealt with, any information he received, any sums he drew or any questions he asked about their performance. For the sums involved this seems extraordinary . He says after the police called H told him Westlake was set up and that is all – again an extraordinarystate of affairs. He says similar about ML – as if he had no sight of or knowledge of the account in the several years between 2004-2008 He says some Westlake payments were authorised by him but not which . PS 6/7, # Bundle 1A, p179 Bundle 1B, p80 1A-170 11.11.2005 Miramar transfer $2.006m from UBP to PictetK888156 HHJTomlinson notes the origins of the money depend on UMs account of how he accumulated his wealth UBP statement shows transfer out of $2.006m Mr Mutati’s w/s dated 01.02.16 states that he “understood from Mr Gohil that the account with Bank Pictet had been opened in the name of Miramar and that the bank had been informed that I was the beneficial owner of Miramar”. 1-825 1B-904 Bundle 1B, p207 BG1, p3501-3502 Pictet and Cie Account K-888156 opened.???? H names himself as client and beneficial owner of the assets ES says he has no cause for complaint about the way H managed the funds within the companies and that in 2005 H suggested he would make better returns on the UBP monies if they were transferred to a bank in Far East Where are the documents for this? Where are communications with ES? What did ES/Parabola & UM/Miramar do to recover the funds transferred? 1B-906 11.11.05 Parabola transfers £4,403,253 from UBP to Pictet & Cie, Singapore (account *K888156)(which allegedly then form part of Castlegrove Inc/Willard funds at Bank Julius Baer [PS 6/7 #1(ii) Mr Shamutete’s W/S dated 29.01.16 at [19]: “I now understand that these monies were transferred via the client account of Arlington Sharmas with Barclays bank although I am unable to say why they went by this route rather than by direct transfer to Singapore. At the time of the transfer of funds to Singapore, I understood from Mr Gohil that the monies would be paid into an account in the name of Parabola with Bank Pictet”. Bundle 1, p825 Bundle 1B, p207 1B-915 1B -904 Bundle 1A, p165 K888156 Pictet & Cie : funds from Parabola transfer mixed with funds of Miramar Trading Inc. These subsequently move on to D-888296 Pictet & Cie. Was H being dishonest with ES by identifying himself as the true beneficial owner or was he now accurately identifying himself as the true beneficial owner of funds which had previously been held in the name of ES/Parabola PS6/7,#11 16.11.05 HHJ Tomlinson finds BG instrumental in depositing $725,000 in Castlegrove Julius Bäer account. Bundle 1, p821 OW4 - 17.11.05 USD $725,000 was transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888156 in BG’s name) to an account with Julius Baer Bank, Geneva, in the name of a company called Castlegrove Inc (“the Castlegrove account”). Bundle 1A, p184 24.11.05 Crest High Holdings Limited company was incorporated in the BVI. BG was registered as beneficial owner pending the production of KYC material. The name later changed to ‘Crest High Management Ltd’. ECS ‘suspect’ H owned company Bundle 1, p836 1C-80 29.11.05 HK$25,000 was paid from Bank Pictet (account *K888156 in BG’s name) to Mr Gohil personally in Hong Kong (equivalent to USD$3,271.08). Bundle 1A, p185 19.12.05 Arlingtons made payments of $2.5m to Bombardier. Bundle 1B, p182 2005/2006 Husbands Notes: Include Business: 1. Disclosure of directorships to accountants; 2. Dany (?) Trust: 3. Difficult clients: 4. Clean up ????? (show capital/cash) Wealth: Trust (Imxal) Assets:(1) SS

(2) JB Why down??: No future-no wealth-kids never around- limited friends Steps: 1. Make law firm pay: 2. Good investment knowledge: 3. Develop Africans/politicians: 4Co-invest/participate in business… 13 Profit building – BG and Law firm Home: London Hampstead (3.5m) £3m loan - £500 £15,000 pcm 12 £180,000 1. Law firm develop 2. Commit to business 3. NAFCON, JITE, JIDE, OPODO, ADC, KALEJAE, SMM, Shengo INVISIBLE Flow chart illustrates TRUST-v-?FOUNDATION linking them to Mum (?) and RY and another with B?A (Business /Assets) of - CGL – JB (Castlegrove/Julius Baer) - Odd (Odessa?) - Sun (Sunset?) - Soc Pem or Gen A separate link is to FOUGERES which in turn links to SCI (Sunfor) (2m-500 – 1,500) Further notes: (1) UBP (2) Pictet

(3) BFrank (200) 1. Transfer CGL to Trustees: 2 Transfer Od to T’ee) Put mums name on acc at JB: 4. Contact ECS re????? trust to IMM on??: 5. Mums name on Odd: 6. Remove SCI funds asap. Collect: (see List) includes a series of sums from JI Challenger , Mutati, and includes 400 ???/SCI. A set of figures at the end could be read as suggesting $11m although they don’t add up. The Husbands evidence suggested these were written in late 2005 or 2006. He accepted they were his handwriting and he suggested they were aspirational to the extent he was able to say much on them. They do not have an entirely clear narrative at times suggesting the Husband was not doing as well as he would like but also referring to his assets as including Sydney Street and Julius Baer. The notes suggest he was considering purchasing a property for £3.5m in Hampstead with repayments of £180,000 per annum (this would fit with a repayment mortgage at 3.5% over 25 years or interest only at 6% which would have been 1.5-1% over base in 2004-6. 1B-255 September 2006 – November 2011 “In excess of 90 letters of request have been sent between on [these] dates….to approximately 22 foreign states or authorities as well as to Jersey and Guernsey.” (Moylan J, 30 May 2012 judgment) Bundle 1, p652 2006 “Raj Classic, India” property purchased. BG’s replies to Questionnaire received 5 June 2007: “The respondent does not have an interest in the property. The respondent’s mother has purchased a property for her use, however this is funded by her daughters. All family members will have access to it.” Bundle 1, 71, 626, 922 2006 Lengau Resources coal bed methane project. BG claims that “this venture involved no marital funds whatsoever and no investment from [him]”. BG claims the applicant securing an ex-parte restraining order “derailed the entire listing process” and “deliberately sabotaging post-separation business ventures”. 20.01.25 1.3.2006 Crest High Man Ltd: H grants PoA to H Crest High has bank account with SG Private Bank which H signs on. 1C-74 1C-80 11.03.06 Investment agreement provided for Westlake Capital to invest funds with Imani. Bundle 1B, p204 14.03.06 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in Mauritius - $517.84 (BG abroad 05.02.06 – 16.02.06). Bundle 3, p8 16.03.06 Crest High Management (CHM) incorporated. BG1, p3550 22.3.2006 SCI: Solicitors write to trustees of Fougeres Trust about non-compliance with requirement to provide documents/ Implies H is the client (owner of SCI) re tax affairs BG1-2884 04.04.06 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in US - $1,309.99, BG abroad 01.04.06 – 06.04.06. Bundle 3, p8 06.04.06 ‘Westlake’ incorporated in Mauritius by a local company called Copex Management Services limited (“Copex”). Copex confirm H was the Beneficial owner BG did not tell Mr Mutati that he had formed the company. Bundle 1A, 161 1C-171 Bundle 1A, p185 06.04.06 Sunset Holdings Limited incorporated in Mauritius – Copex shown as the nominee shareholder on behalf of BG. Copex confirm H as beneficial owner Not shown in H’s 2007 Form E Bank account with Merck Finck established through which funds for the purchase of the Bombardier plane went Bundle 1B, p220 1C-171 11.04.06 BG signed a template letter at the time Societé Generale Bank & Trust in Singapore opened account *8888192 in the name of ‘Crest High’ in regard to which BG was a signatory. Bundle 1, p836 11.4.2006 Crest High: H confirms ECS have not provided him with tax advice about Assumption Ltd or investment advice about Crest High. Who are Assumption Ltd and why is he confirming he hasn’t taken Tax advice? - 1C-76 17.4.2006 H’s Notes: Ristorante Romano Property - 1. Agents contact – Regents Park, St Johns Wood, Hampstead - 2. Sydney Street ???? - 3. Highlander – charge Dad – land Registry application Kids – Devan school-Harrow-????? The contents suggest that H was considering a property in some of the most expensive areas of London and his oral evidence did little to dispel this. 1B-252 28.04.06 VG applied to vary the provision made in the consent order in respect of the payment of £170,000 and sought its immediate payment. Bundle 1, p679 23.5.20006 $200,000 transferred from Picttet 888156 There is no written evidence in relation to this. 1B-925 1.6.2006 H deposits $365,000 in Castlegrove Julius Baer account from Pictet & Cie K888156 1-821 1A-185 02.06.06 Arlingtons made payments of $2m to Bombardier. Bundle 1B, p182 Pictet : 888156 $365,0000 moved to Castelegrove 1B-926 15.6.2006 Castlegrove ; Cresthigh: ECS correspond with Société Generale around opening accounts for both 1C-65 19.06.06 Baron J refused VG’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the consent order of 30.04.04. VG’s application to vary the provision in respect of the payment of £170,000 was dismissed on the basis that BG’s father was ordered to pay £170,000 into an account in the name of BG’s solicitor within 14 days. The order was made on that basis because BG asserted that the £170,000 was being lent to him by his father from his father’s share of the funds held within Odessa. Bundle 1, p679 21.6.2006 H deposits $358696 in castlegrove Julius Baer account from Pictet and Cie K888156 1-821 21.06.06 Rizwan Siddique accepted instructions in respect of the purchase of Raj Classic (lawyer in India who acted for BG and other family members) received $17,000 (1st out of 4 remittance payments totalling $72,120) which came from the Castlegrove Julius Baer account The inference of HHJ Tomlinsons judgment is these sums to buy Raj Classic came from the Castlegrove Julius Baer account Bundle 1, p821 July 2006 Sloane/Pictet set up. Pictet and Cie account 888586 established for Sloane Capital Ltd Bundle 1, p626 05.07.06 Rizwan Siddique accepted instructions in respect of the purchase of Raj Classic received $2,940 from Castlegrove Julius Baer acc (2nd out of 4 remittance payments totalling $72,120). Bundle 1, p821 07.07.2006 Pictet and Cie Acc No 888296 Application on behalf of Westlake Capital Ltd to establish bank account on basis that Westlake is an investment holding company set up solely for the purpose of holding investment assets for an individual worth more than $2m net Form ‘Establishment of beneficial owners identity’ The Client hereby declares that the beneficial owner/s of the assets is/are Mr Bhadresh Gohil. The document is signed by 2 individuals one appears to be H in Mauritius, the other signatory seems to that of an individual associated (Assad Abdullatif) with Copex Management Services Ltd the administrator of Westlake. The Beneficial owners document does not identify the client but the bank account number is 888296. 1B – 945 1B-934 19.07.06 Rizwan Siddique accepted instructions in respect of the purchase of Raj Classic received $10,180 (3rd out of 4 remittance payments totalling $72,120). Bundle 1, p821 31.07.06 Search & Seizure Warrants – Ibori and others (start of Ibori proceedings). BG1,p31 06.08.06 – 09.08.06 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in UK and Cyprus - $1,381.26, BG abroad with 3 children in Paphos, Cyprus on 08.08.06-14.08.06. Bundle 3, p8 04.09.06 Letter confirmation that the corporate director of ‘Westlake Capital Ltd’ is COPEX Management Services Ltd. 25.09.06 – 12.12.06 Payments totalling $147,140 made to BG from Castlegrove Julius Baer account (#185) Bundle 1B, p203 28.9.2006 Castlegrove: £10k paid to H’s solicitros 1C-88 Oct 2006 Pictet & Cie a/c K-888156 closed. All funds transferred to Pictet & Cie D-888296 in name of Westlake Capital Ltd with H maintaining he was the beneficial owner of the assets PS6/7, #11 1B/945 Pictert and Cie – funds transfer out of $5,190m Over $1.2m has gone over the period of the account being open. 1B-932 3.10.2006 $14,637 allegedly transferred from Pictet K-888156 to Pictet D-888296 The Sum’s origins do not appear to be verified by bank documents contrary to PS6/7 fn 58 4.10.2006 H/R3/Castelgrove acquires Raj Classic [PS5/8#9] 04.10.06 (HHJ Tomlinson’s findings) “[BG] sent $5,204,637 to another Pictet & Cie Singapore account, but in the name of ‘Westlake’. From Westlake $2,000,000 went to Julius Bäer in Switzerland under the name of Willard Investments. $2,415,615 went to HSBC Hong Kong under the name of Zetland Financial Group. Zetland was where $11,676,548 representing the proceeds of the V-Mobile fraud also landed. From the original K888156 account, BG also remitted $1,115,000 to a Castlegrove account at Julius Bäer, Switzerland.” Bundle 1, p826, Bundle 1A, p161 Bundle 1B, p208 4.10.2006 $5.19m transferred from Pictet K-888156 to Pictet D-888296 (Westlake) PS6/7, #20 1B-947 1B-932 18.10.06 Rizwan Siddique accepted instructions in respect of the purchase of Raj Classic received $42,000 (4th out of 4 remittance payments totalling $72,120). Bundle 1, p821 29.11.06 Euros 1750 transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to Deutsche Bank Frankfurt. Bundle 1A, p185 30.11.06 USD 2310 transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to unspecified bank. Bundle 1A, p185 13.12.06 Opening of bank account *1157639 in the name of Sunset Holdings with Merck Finck & Co. Bundle 1B, p220 2006/07 BG states that “Bilt Finance Limited account was funded from funds emanating from the Notore Chemicals, a Nigerian based transaction undertaken between 2006-7.” Bundle 1B, p54 23.12.2007 Castlegrove: H instructs ECS to forward $100k from Castlegrove to Schroder, Zurich which appears to be the Odessa account 1C-108 February 2007 BG opened accounts for Sennbridge Capital and Wellwick Capital, both at SA Franck Galland & Cie (accounts *0886, 0882, 0883 respectively). BG gave his address as Raj Classic, Mumbai. Record showed BG to be its beneficiary and shareholder and the source of the wealth as ‘accumulated savings/family inheritance. Subsequently he instructed the funds to be transferred to Sennbridge. In 2014 he again accepted B/O of the funds in Wellwick H Wellwick The underlying transaction was the Lengau Resources coal bed methane project that commenced in 2006 – four years after our separation. This venture involved no marital funds whatsoever and no investment from me…. It was a pooling account for lots of other investors to pay into. The transfers came from legitimate sources .. Bundle 1, p821-822, 833 1B-264 B2-53 1B-264 21.2.2007 Westlake: $350,000 debited from Westlake P&C D888296 This seems to go to Imani Securities at ES direction 1C-164 1B-951 16.3.2007 AS/H served with Production order 30.03.07 Babulal Gohil (BG’s father) states in his Affidavit that the properties purchased in his name in India were purchased on behalf of the husband. Asserts that in 2001 the husband sought to persuade him to transfer the FMH from the joint names of himself and his wife into their names and the name of Imxal Discretionary Trust (BG’s “previously set up trust”. Cars: [10]: BG “had acquired and disposed of a number of medium range cars, but following a significant improvement in his finances, he was able to give up his BMW 300 series and acquired a Mercedes Coupe in 1996. After one year and whilst he still had the Coupe he bought himself a brand new Mercedes 500 SL sports car valued at approximately £75,000. I understand that he is now falsely alleging I financed his expensive hobby. In 1999 he even went on to purchase a Mercedes ‘S’ class for £60,000.” India Properties: [13]: “He had instructed me to purchase a flat in Mumbai, India for the family. Bhadresh provided the financing, but he wanted it to be registered in my name, so in 1994 I secured a flat in Bhayander, Divine Sheraton Plaza.” [14]: “We agreed the purchase of a newly constructed Flat 1002 Ashoka (A) building, Panch Road, India which was then priced in the region of £50000.” [15]: “Bhadresh transferred the funds to Mr Stani Saldhana, 6/5 Assisi Nagar Marg, PL Lokhandwala Marg, Chembur (w) Mumbai, India, who paid the funds directly to the builders, Jaycee Construction Co. I was not involved in the financial transaction.” Highlander: [18]: “In June 2001 whilst I was still in the UK, BBG presented me with documents which he had filled in and which only required my signature so that ‘Highlander’ could pass into his previously set up trust called ‘Imxal Discretionary Trust.” Bhadresh: Offshore Bank Accounts: [35]: “I have never shared business, investment or any other financial interests with Bhadresh…Neither have I ever had joint accounts with him either in the UK or abroad.” Mercedes SL Convertible with glass roof: [56]: “This vehicle was purchased in 1998 by Bhadresh and belonged solely to him. He purchased it brand new. I have never sat in it, nor used it, nor have I paid for it either fully or even partially.” Bundle 1,p683 Bundle 1B, p1301 03.04.07 – 13.04.07 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in Mumbai, India, UK & Vienna, Austria - $1,701.06, BG abroad 27.03.07 – 4.04.07, 11.04.07-14.04.07. Why is H using Parabola account if it is not his?. Bundle 3, p8 19.4.2007 H asserts Odessa accounts closed Moylan J noted in his judgment that substantial transaction continued until the end of 2007 and the assertion it was closed before was to hide that he had other sources of funds which were going into the account 1B- 48 BG1-33 May 2007 Replies to questionnaire re Raj Classic flat(s), Mumbai, India – BG said that his mother had purchased a flat funded by “her daughters”. N.B. BG’s is inconsistent in his accounts – see 11.07.08, 08.08.08, 25.09.12. Bundle 1, p686-687 11.05.07 USD 2904.49 transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to RBS, Guernsey. Mr Mutati believes this was to pay an invoice from Copex. Bundle 1A, p185 14.05.07 USD 2986.89 transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to unspecified bank. Bundle 1A, p185 22.5.2007 ECS e-mail - Castlegrove: concerns about documentation relating to B/O Rekha Yadav and H’s exclusive control and request to transfer significant funds - Crest High: Never been told who funds are held for …outstanding information… [ECS] currently holding $3m and need information as to the source of funds and wealth imperative. BG3-163 23.05.07 Slavonian Finance Corp established in the British Virgin Islands, holding an account with Schroder Bank, Geneva, Switzerland (Account *605966-1). The company’s directors and signatories are Gallatin Directors Ltd. N.B. Bundle 1 states Slavonian Corp was established in November 2007. Bundle 1A, p199 BG1, p3537 25.5.2007 ES email directing transfers to Suresh Gupta annd Imani Securities 1B971 31.5.2007 Odessa: Castlegrove: $89,500 transmitted by Castlegrove (ECS IoM account) to Odessa account in Schroders Moylan J found that on25 May 2007 H had said the accounts were depleted and about to be closed. He further found sums of £40k were paid in in July, $90k was paid in and out in July and by Nov 2007 the account held about £79,000 This payment would not be consistent with H’s account in his answers to Questionnaire and would be further evidence of non-disclosure and would potentially have led to Castlegrove in those proceedings. OW4-370 June 2007 Willard Investments Ltd /Julius Baer set up. BG states that Willard Investments Ltd “is an entity belonging to Urbano Mutati.” Bundle 1, p626 Bundle 1B, p72 05.06.07 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in Paris - $689.20. Bundle 3, p8 12.06.07 Ebonee Financial Ltd was incorporated. Bundle 1B, p81 25.6.2007 Letter: R2 to W in which he recounts how he transferred £15,700 to an account in the name of Hempton International 1-687 29.6.2007 Willard: $2m transferred from Pictet D888296 to Julius Baer Geneva H accepts he authorised this transfer 1B-955 03.07.07 VG applied to set aside the order of 30 April 2004 on the basis of material financial non-disclosure, fraud and misrepresentation. VG relies upon an affidavit from BG’s father. Bundle 1, p652 3.7.2007 Westlake P&C: Transfer of - $187k to Citibank Singapore - $193k to HSBC Private Suisse - 1C-164 04.07.2007 Pictet D-888156 transfer $2m to Julius Baer Bank USD $2 million transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to an account with Julius Baer bank, Switzerland, in the name of a company called Willard Investment Limited (“the Willard account”). MLA material shows Willard Investments Ltd held an account with Julius Baer and that deposits into that account came from a number of sources including Westlake Capital PS6/7 #12(i) 1A-185 1C-164 14.7.2007 Pictet D-888156 transfer $2.415m & £56k to HSBC HK Zetland the accounts of Castlegrove Inc and Sloane Capital Ltd, material obtained by way of MLA demonstrating the source of monies paid into the accounts was obtained from Hong Kong PS6/7,#10(ii) 1B-968 1B-970 17.07.07 Communication from Arlingtons’ to Copex advising the imminent despatch by Miyamoto of an agreed fee in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from Bombardier, Canada. Bundle 1B, p220 19.07.07 Platinum Habib sent $418,275.64 to account *1157639. N.B. Nearly one year later on, 16.07.08, $401, 899.88 left *1157639 for Zetland. Bundle 1B, p220 23.7.2007 COPEX: BG Both companies (Westlake and Sunet) were set up initially with Bhadresh as BO with the intention of transferring the same to an existing discretionary trust (or a new one to be settled ) where Bhadresh will is a potential beneficiary’ Westlake $5.19m is his family savings and inheritance [H] provides advisory services through Westlake and Sunset generating approx. $300k per year.There is $410,000 unbilled for each company This refers to either transferring the companies to an existing discretionary trust where H is the beneficial owner or setting up a new trust 1C-193 28.7.2003 ECS : Castlegrove : request to open account with IoM account where underlying client is identified as Rekha Yadav and H 1C-63 29.07.07 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Expenditure of BG in New York - $502. Bundle 3, p8 October 2007 Wellwick Capital SA incorporated. Bundle 1, p626 04.10.07 Lengau Resources Plc incorporated. Bundle 1B, p1263 7.11.07 BG arrested. Bundle 1, p652 07.11.07 H “on 7 November 2007, a balance of £79,865.95 was transferred from Odessa Management Limited and the account was thereafter closed. This account is not marital capital. It has also been restrained by the Swiss Authorities and has unpaid fiduciary fees since 2008.” H states that the Slavonian Finance Corp received the opening transfer of £79,865.95 from Odessa, representing funds from 1995/6 transactions.” Bundle 1, p631 1B-81 12.12.07 BG resigns as director of Lengau Resources plc. BG1, p37 24.01.08 BG allotted £12,500 1p ordinary shares in Lengau Resources Plc. BG1, P37 February 2008 Merrill Lynch (‘Parabola’ account *ICA-07426): Last Visa expenditure shown by BG to ‘Google’ (“removeyourname”) - $1,995. Bundle 3, p7-8 2008 VG academically qualified solicitor. W: when H learned that I had completed my law degree and legal training course his hostility intensified further. By this time the children had substantially fallen behind academically from their peers because of all the disruption to their schooling and home life. It took all my efforts, time and resources to help and support them. I was in a constant state of worry and anxiety about their futures and was forced to make difficult choices. I therefore prioritise the children’s needs over my career. 1-610 12.3.2008 Westlake: P&C D888296 transfer of $120,799 to Lloyds Bank London March 2008 BG telephoned ANIL CHATURVEDI (Financial Advisor, Senior VP of Merrill Lynch & Co, New York) to ask whether he could withdraw cash from the Parabola account. AC told BG that he could not (para.11). 2nd Statement of Oliver Wren p109-110 5.5.2008 COPEX !C-154 7.5.2008 COPEX handwritten note suggesting H is UBO (Ultimate beneficial owner) of Westlake 1C-62 9.5.2008 Westlake: H confirms P&C monies are his family affairs and wants COPEX to incorporate another 2 companies H says these documents were generated because the police investigation was under way. Although H says he had conversations with them his inference is they made up the contents. H fell out with Copex as they were giving him hassle about them requiring Bank statements for Westlake. H then moved business away from COPEX 1C-161 9.5.2008 Westlake: Transfers H had authorised set out including Lloyds TSB London for $120,799 and $2m to Julius Baer (?Willard) 1C-164 9.5.2008 Westlake: Letter confirming H was beneficial owner of Westlake Also refers to Westlake supposedly receiving $419,000 in respect of the Bombardier purchase 1C 166 1C-193 12.5.2008 Westlake : FILE NOTE $5.19m + $14,000 $5,204 which fgoes from Pictet to Westlake. H says these funds represent savings from past income, “He reiterated the fact that this was part of his family affairs and did not want CMS to confuse his personal/family affairs with that of his clients. I assured him that he already separated his companies form those of his clients.” 1C-169 16.5.2008 Westlake: Copex to P&C confirms H is beneficial owner of Westlake 1C-171/172 21.5.2008 Westlake: Disagreement between H and COPEX: Confirms he is beneficial owner of Westlake Confirms it is his inheritance. 3 people witness the call H refuses to provide information about transactions he has authorised on P&C 1C-167 11.6.2008 Fax from H to Copex asking for Westlake and Sunset to be closed and funds remitted to Zetland Finacnial Group, Hong Kong. 1C-194 /5 July 2008 Bilt Finance/Hinduja set up. H: the Bilt Finance Limited account was funded from funds emanating from the Notore Chemicals, a Nigerian based transaction undertaken between 2006-7 Email from Nitu Gulab says that H asked her to ass on the following information ‘ “The audit trail will show the following: The entire amount in the account represents the fee for a 2005/2006 capital raising/investment facility. There has been no additions or use. The funds have only ever been reinvested. The underlying transaction was in 2006 - the purchase of a fertilizer plant in Nigeria called Notore Chemicals Ltd. BG was the registered lawyer to the facility- raising who represented Notore. The promoter/owner of Notore was an individual called Jite Okoloko - who continues as the company's CEO and primary shareholder. BG brokered the investment/facility from Emerging Market Partners LLP (EMP), an African/industry focused hedge fund based out of Washington. The purchase price of the company - then called Nafcon was $150m. The local purchase part of the transaction was undertaken by Nigerian lawyers. It was fully recorded and the reporting documents for the transaction can be made available.$55m was remitted in 2007 by EMP to Notore Chemicals Ltd to its account in Mauritius and represented fees. Post conclusion of this transaction, Notore/Okoloko organised remittances to BG. The $55m was used for the successful purchase of the company, the plant and its business, which then immediately raised further capital locally by issuing further shares and immediately introduced the Egyptian fertilizer company as a co-investor. The funds remitted were originally and directly remitted to SG bank in Singapore, into an account beneficially owned/documented as such by BG in the name of Crest High Management, where they remained until they were moved to you. B is and always has been the sole beneficial owner and will confirm so." HHJ Tomlinson found that on 9 July 2008 $2.5m and on 15 July $1.079m were remitted from Crest High to BILT (Crest High was associated with a pattern of activity that was similiar to the distribution of JIs offending). In 2014 H accepted he was the B/O of BILT and that the sums were from legitimate capital raising/shareholder gains investment facility. H found to be B/O of the funds. Bundle 1, p626 BG1-3549 1B- 54 1-836 1B-337 03.07.08 Account in the name of Wellwick Capital Ltd was opened. BG identified as beneficial owner. BG gave the “Highlander”, Chislehurst address. HHJ Tomlinson at [218] stated: “At the time of its opening, the source of funds was from Zetland explained as originating from legal consultancy and profit in deals “relating to a mobile telephone company to the Kuwait telephone company…” Bundle 1, p833 11.07.08 Hearing before Baron J – Re Raj Classic Flat(s), Mumbai, India. BG accepted that two flats had been purchased and said that his sister had purchased one and “Odessa contributed as well towards it so it was a joint purchase”. BG was ordered to disclose information and documentary confirmation relating to the purchase and refurbishment of these properties by Baron J’s order of 11 July 2008. Bundle 1, p686 14.07.08 USD $2,415,615 was transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to an account with HSBC, Hong Kong in the name of a company called Zetland Financial Group (“the Zetland account”). No statements for this to confirm the balance is there. MLA Bundle 1A, p185 1B-968/970 1C-194-5 16.07.08 $401, 899.88 left account of Sunset Holdings *1157639 for Zetland. Bundle 1B, p220 25.07.2008 DC Ben Irons interviews Mr Chaturvedi - Mr Gohil was like every affluent person he had met. - There was little activity on the account - Mr Gohil withdraw cash once. - He considered him a friend and was aware of his divorce - After consulting with his lawyer Mr Chaturvedi said H had told him his wife wanted every penny and that he should not refer in correspondence to your account but to Mutual Client. 1B-464 29.07.08 £56,244.08 was transferred from Bank Pictet (account *K888296 in ‘Westlake’ name) to the Zetland account (equivalent at this date to USD 111,363 at a rate of 1GBP =USD1.98). Bundle 1A, p185 August 2008 BG procured the payment of USD2,526,600 from the Zetland account to an account in the name of ‘Sloane Capital Ltd’ with Bank Pictet (Asia) Limited. Mr Mutati suggests this is the final destination of the $2.006m which was transferred to Pictet and Cie from UBP Miramar account in November 2005 Bundle 1A, p186 20.10.2008 Pictet and Cie D-888296 acc closed. No further funds received other than those said to have come from K-888156 (no identification of origin on bank statement) PS6/7,# 12 1B-947 September 2008 BG states that 2 payments (total: USD$611,000) made on his instruction to a company called ‘Earls Court International’ were authorised by him “on behalf of Shamutete/Mutati”. Mr Mutati in w/s dated 01.02.16 that he “does not understand this” and “I did not authorise these payments and do not recognise the name of this company.” Bundle 1A, p186 09.09.08 Del Sol account – US $2.55 million was made to the account of Del Sol at the Liechtensteinische Landesbank Bundle 1B, p265 10.09.08 Transfer in the sum of US $1 million was made to the account of Serapis Global, LGT Bank, Austria. Bundle 1B, p266 24.09.08 BG first charged with offences of money laundering (five Operation Tureen) offences consisting of 4 substantive money laundering offences and the further offence of prejudicing a money laundering investigation). Bundle 1, p674 Bundle 1B, p196 20.10.08 Westlake account (*K888296) closed by BG. Zero balance left on the account following transfers to Zetland on 14 and 29 July 2008. Bundle 1A, p185 22.10.08 AFFIDAVIT of ANIL CHATURVEDI (Financial Advisor, Senior VP of Merrill Lynch & Co, New York) 1999 – introduced to BG in London, England. [5] BG funded the [“Parabola”] account with an initial deposit of $2,000,000.00. The Parabola account was non-discretionary, meaning that I could not make investments or otherwise dispose of the assets in the account without the approval of Parabola. Documents provided to me by International Management Corporation, Mauritius, at the time Mr Gohil opened the account, identify BG as the beneficial owner of Parabola”. [7] “Between 2000 and 2007, the value of the assets in the Parabola account varied from $1,100,000.00 and $2,150,000.00”. [8] “In or around July 2002, BG told me he and his wife were divorcing. BG stated that, if lawyers representing his wife’s interests were to contact Merrill Lynch, that I should not disclosure any information about the Parabola account, including the identity of the beneficial owner of the account”. (At para.9) “BG instructed me, going forward, not to use the word “your” in my correspondence with him, and instead to use the words “our mutual client””. [12] AC stated that he does not know: COPEX (Mauritius); IMM; Johnny Man SHING; Enzo International; Dominique DZURYNSKI; James IBORI; Edwards SHAMUTETE. 2nd Statement of Oliver Wren p109-110 1B--471 17.11.08 HHJ Beddoe imposes a Restraint Order against BG, BG’s father, Zetland Financial Group Ltd and Parabola International Corporation. BG prohibited from dealing with all of his realisable property in particular: - An account with NatWest Gibraltar, believed to be in the name of Babulal Gohil; - Ashoka flat, Mumbai, India; - Divine Sheraton Plaza flat, India; - An account held at HSBC Bank, Harcourt Road Branch, Central Hong Kong, held in the name of Zetland Financial Group Ltd; - An account held at Bank Indosuez, in the name of Babulal Gohil; - An account held with Merrill Lynch on behalf of Parabola International Corporation, 6 Arlington Street, St James’s (address of BG’s partnership); - Investec Private Bank (account number given in the name of BG). The restraint order was varied on a number of occasions to particularise further assets: 7 April 2009, 9 June 2009, 20 September 2010. In s25 Statement, BG states that he has “not had any income and/or drawings from any of the restrained assets.” Bundle 1, p764 p8, 631, p651, 680 1.12.2008 Ramtoolah Affidavit 1C-196-7 1.12.2008 Interview of Mr Chaturvedi The content of the affidavit is detailed and H agrees that aspects are true (for instance the source of their introduction) 1B-464 2009 VG and Vijay Yadav appointed executors of BG’s Will. In 2018 VY renounced his executorship and VG became the sole executor of BG’s father’s estate. Bundle 1, p72, 630 13.03.09 ANIL CHATURVEDI Affidavit – [5] “Notwithstanding my July 15, 2002 letter to the solicitors representing Mr Gohil in his divorce proceedings, I believed at all times during the period I serviced the Parabola International Corp account that Mr Gohil was the true beneficial owner of Parabola International Corp.” 2nd Statement of Oliver Wren p111 23.03.09 HHJ Wilcox (sitting as a DHCJ) ordered the release of the lump sum instalment of £170,000, then being held by BG’s solicitors, to VG. (The sum was paid in June 2009.) Bundle 1, p683 09.09.09 BG charged with conspiracy to defraud and further money laundering offences (re involvement in a fraud relating to the sale by Delta State and Akwa Ibom State of shares in a mobile telephone service provider, V Mobile. Fraud involved the dishonest diversion of $37m from these two States). Bundle 1, p651, 680 19.5.2010 Mr Sodhi (alleged b/o of Fougeres Trust ) arrested. Mr Sodhi denied any knowledge of 88 Sydney Street, any connection with Fougeres Trust and there was nothing found on his devices or records which connected him with 88 Sydney Street. In the conveyancing file for 88 SS was a certified copy of his passport – certified by H. Mr Sodhi said he knew H and used him to certify his identity for opening accounts. All communications with Mr Sodhi as purchaser of 88SS were by email via an address not known to Mr Sodhi. Police conclude the purchaser was H who misused Mr Sodhi’s identity to acquire the property. 1-861 2010 BG struck off as a Solicitor. Bundle 1, p8 23.11.10 BG convicted, after a two-month trial of four counts of money laundering, valued at over $20million, and one count of prejudicing a money laundering enquiry. These offences concerned the assistance BG provided to Mr James Ibori, who had been Governor of Delta State, Nigeria for some years up to 2007. - Between 1.4.05 and 28.2.2007 H put the Arlingtons’ client account at [criminals] disposal enabling them to make payments to it, out of which he effected payments on their behalf without asking the sort of questions that may be posed by officials at a conventional banking institution. - Between 1.4.05 and 30.8.20007 H concealed and disguised a quantity of cash representing criminal property by converting it to the purchase of real property, - between 1 April 2005 and 1 December 2007 H assisted criminals to attempt to purchase a $20 million aircraft using criminal property defrauded from a State - H advance the details of Edward Shamutete instead of a criminal is the owner of monies passing through a bank account - H was concerned in an arrangement which enabled the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by a criminal through the use of a private bank account with a private bank. Bundle 1, p8, p651, 680 1B-84 1-787 6.12.10 BG pleaded guilty to a number of offences – 6 further counts of money laundering and conspiracy to forge documents, relating to the fraudulent diversion of $37million from Delta State and Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria (known as the ‘Ibori’ (T2) proceedings). - Conspiracy to defraud between 1 September 2005 and 1 January 2007 - conspiracy to make false instruments in relation to non-existent services supposedly provided - being concerned in a criminal arrangement which enabled the acquisition retention use or control of criminal property x 2 - H and others converted US$26.58 million knowing or suspecting that some was the benefit of criminal conduct (4 offences) Much of this was using companies to process criminal funds disguised as loans. - Bundle 1, p651 8.04.2011 HHJ Hardy sentenced H : Tureen: (Guilty Verdicts to money laundering and interfering with a money laundering investigation ) 3 years Augen: ( Guilty plea to forgery and laundering 8 counts) 7 years concurrrent 1-773 15.8.2011 STR Report by COPEX on suspicions about 88 Sydney Street/Sunfor/Fougeres/Hempton The detail in the report on the backgrounds and how they fell out of contact with ‘Mr Sodhi’ provides strong support when read with Mr Sodhi’s evidence and that of the ‘agreement’ between Fougeres and Castlegrove that the whole of the transaction was a cover for the purchase of 88 Sydney Street by the Husband./ 1C-214 12.04.12 Restraint Order against BG extended to include 88 Sydney Street in the list of alleged assets. Bundle 1, p761 30.05.12 Hearing before Moylan J - Gohil v Gohil

[2012] EWHC 1733 (Fam)

(Case No. FD02D03678): [83] “exercising my discretion to order the disclosure of the documents sought by the wife to be used solely for the purposes of her application to set aside the ancillary relief order and, if successful, her substantive ancillary relief application.” Bundle 1, p649 - 671 25.09.12 Hearing before Moylan J – Gohil v Gohil

[2012] EWHC 2897 (Fam)

(Case No. FD02D03678). Bundle 1, p672, Note : J Moylan’s reasoning for not setting aside the ‘whole’ order of 30.4.04 : See Judgment para 106 “ having regard to the Court of Appeal's decision of Independent Trustee Services Ltd. v GP Noble Trustees Ltd. & others & Susan Morris

[2012] 3 All ER 210

as to the effect of a substantive order being set aside, I propose at this stage to set aside only para.5 of the 2004 order. But for the Court of Appeal's decision, I would have set aside the whole order” . This was to avoid exposing the W to situation where she had to return the lump sum after set-aside. J Moylan provides that at her financial rehearing “para.1 of the 2004 order can then be set aside and the alternative order made” 25.10.12 H struck off the Solicitors Roll (following his conviction. H did not attend hearing) – Law Society Tribunal decision 31.10.2012 H seeks to appeal criminal convictions out of time 2012 Devan returns to live with W and siblings W: when Devan finally left his father’s home just before he turned 21 and came back to live with me and his siblings, his paternal family was enraged and predictably cut off all contact with him. 1-611 23.11.2012 Mr Mutati instructs Radcliffes Le Brasseur to write to Bindmans about the funds owed to him 1A-190 26.11.12 Court of Appeal Hearing before Master of the Rolls, Halleett LJ, McFarlane LJ (

[2012] EWCA Civ 1550

). MLA appeal Issue in this appeal is whether s9(2) of The Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 permits the use in family proceedings of evidence pursuant to a request under s7. Appeal allowed. Para 1 and 2 of the Order of 30.5.12 (in proceedings numbered FD02D036780 – Mr J Moylan) be set-aside Bundle 1, 698 Dec 2012 W is alerted to Restriction on the property register at Land Registry (LR) on 88 Sydney St, SW3 6NJ dated 19 April 2012 by CPS 26.06.13 Mauritian Company’s House notifies VG that Hempton Holdings registered company ‘IMM – Mauritius’ has been ‘removed’ from the register of Companies under s308 Companies Act 2001 on 20.09.11. W withdraws her application to join Hemptons. Dr Zvogbo died in 2004 – H says Hemptons was wound up following his death. Bundle 1, p39 1-712 10.12.13 Court of Appeal Hearing – Gohil v Gohil

[2014] EWCA Civ 274

before Arden LJ, Pitchford LJ and McFarlane LJ re H’s appeal of the Set-Aside Order of Moylan J on 25.09.12 and 20.11.12. (1 day) Bundle 1, p41 20.12.13 Hearing before Moylan J (Gohil v Gohil

[2013] EWHC 4556 (Fam)

). Determination of two applications made by VG: (1) application to join a third party (‘Sunfor Commeicial Inc’) to the proceedings, (2) application for the issue of a number of letters of request. Bundle 1, p711 13.03.14 Reserved Judgment of the Court of Appeal – Gohil v Gohil

[2014] EWCA Civ 274

before Arden LJ, Pitchford LJ and McFarlane LJ. Ordered and directed that the “appellant’s appeal against the said orders made by Moylan J is hereby allowed and those orders are herby set aside, including the provisions therein as to costs”. Bundle 1, p104 18.03.14 Restraint Order against BG further varied to enable the appointment of Foxtons to manage 88 Sydney Street. Bundle 1, p761 20.03.14 VG seeks permission to appeal to UKSC. Bundle 1, p41 09.04.14 Court of Appeal (Arden LJ, Pitchford LJ, McFarlane LJ) VG’s application for permission to appeal to the UKSC refused. Bundle 1, p106 7.6.2014 CACD refuse H’s application for PTA. CPS confirm no material to support H’s allegations of a corrupt cirrupt relationship between an MPS Financial Investigator and a PI instructed by H/solicitors when dealing with JI affairs. 1-777 9.6.2014 Final Hearing of W’s FR claim vacated in consequence of appeal being allowed. 9.7.2104 H’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed Davis LJ the present strategy on behalf of the applicant [the husband] - on the jury’s verdict, and on his own subsequent please, a corrupt solicitor-is thus now to allege corruption on the part of the investigators all the other matters put forward, an arguable case of corruption relating to the first trial… It would be complete speculation… Subsequent statements would seem to tend to rebut it…. Internal investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing 1B-103 14.11.14 UKSC – permission granted for VG’s appeal. Bundle 1, p42 2014 H’s Section 17 statement in CO proceedings re ownership of assets 1B-268 28.1.2015 Finska email: this is a draft of the letter you need to send to Peter a SAP-it’s got to come from his lawyer We represent [Rekha Yadav] We understand there are currently proceedings in the UK in which assets belonging to our client are mentioned. This appears so because of the connection to Bhadresh Gohil. Neither our client, nor the Company identified have done any wrong nor are the funds in anyway tainted. We are instructed that the following assets have been identified:- 1. A non UK property namely Raj Classic, our client's home. The property was placed into Mr Gohil's name at purchase jointly with our client's mother purely for family and practical reasons. Mr Gohil assisted in the purchase transaction as a solicitor [and brother] through a special purpose power of attorney. The purchase payment was made entirely by Castlegrove Inc. Mr Gohil does not nor ever had any beneficial entitlement. 2. A non-U K Company Castlegrove Inc, a company beneficially owned by our client and its account at Julius Baer in Switzerland. Mr Gohil does not nor ever had any beneficial entitlement to the Company or its account. 3. Castlegrove Inc's funding investment of a UK property known as 88 Sydney Street owned by the Fougeres Trust in Mauritius. Arlington* Sharmas Solicitors/Mr Gohil handled the transaction. The transaction has been complicated by outstanding tax issues. This matter remains unresolved. We have enforced our security rights and are seeking recovery of the funds, interest, mesne profits and commercial damages for default of repayment. Our client therefore asserts a claim over these assets. Devan says he received the email with the draft the husband and that ‘Peter’ was a code word for Rekha Yadav. DG – 1B-1244 29.1.2015 Devan says H sent him a check-list of things to do. “the blue EKS/merrill one is critical…… remember {keep?} it in your hands at court 1B-1247 4.2.2015 H asks Devan to forward list of requests to Rekha one of which may relate to getting control of funds in an account “Effectively, move the funds under your direct control…. An account at ICICI” In this request the Husband refers to N having similar difficulties with ‘Reemul’ who appears likely to be Rajiv Reemul at Trustlink (corporate services company) who it is suggested by W was involved in the administration of Castlegrove or Cresthigh. The content of the email suggests that this is an entity or account which was not subject to the restraint order at this time which seems unlikely to be Castlegrove as the letters being sent by Peter/Rekha are specifically concerned with the Julius Baer Castlegrove account which has the very significant funds in it. It also seems probable that the N referred to is Nitu and that she secured a bankers draft from Reemul/Trustlink for funds 1B-1249 8.2.2015 Finska email: H asks Rekha again to claim Raj Classic, 88SS and Castlegrove by way of a notarised declaration. H says three large assets earned legitimately are lost if this does not happen H is asking his sister to sign a document with legal effect which would be false and would potentially expose her to charges of making false declarations or attempting to pervert the course of justice. 1B-1252/3 10.2.2015 Finska email: H pursuing Rekha. “Ignoring this means we lose three valuable assets/amounts. Please don’t do this-let’s get on and sort this out” 1B-1255 17.2.2015 Finska email: Message to UM: “ I had a call from my father who sounded v upset. He was told of certain documents being sent. Please understand everything is very delicate – such action is going to make everything worse.- please withdraw. It is not clear what documents this might relate to although probably in relation to the Confiscation proceedings and relevant to the interest that UM claimed. A further communication to Rekha/Peter says “… Unless I can demonstrate third-party funds and they make claims, the court deems these as mine. We need to send letters as drafted. That is all that is required. Third parties have no actual standing in these proceedings and are NOT Required to attend or any suchlike ….. If I can’t demonstrate third-party interests, then I face a further 10 year prison sentence…. Please I beg you to help sort this out. Everyone else including EKS/UM. have done so. This is misleading as to the role Rekha might play. The content seems wholly inconsistent with suggesting that Rekha or indeed EKS/UM would claim their own assets as opposed to saying they are theirs to help H. 8.6.15 – 10.6.15 UKSC Hearing before JSC: Neuberger, Hale, Wilson, Reed, Clarke, Sumption and Hodge (Gohil v Gohil

[2016] UKSC 61

]). 14.10.15 Order of the UKSC – VG’s appeal allowed, reinstates Moylan J’s order. (Gohil v Gohil

[2016] UKSC 61

]). See [36]. 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The orders of the Court of Appeal dated 13 March 2014 and 9 April 2014 be set aside. 3. The parties shall file and serve written submissions as to costs by no later than 4pm on 30 October 2015. Each party has liberty to respond to the other’s submissions as to costs by no later than 4pm on 6 November 2015. Bundle 1, 722 2015 Proceedings in Singapore by ES/UM to get documents from Pictet and Cie 1B-1257 November 2015 BG due to be released on licence (served 5 years). H was not released as he had been charged on a separate indictment for perverting the course of justice and bail was refused. Bundle 1, p8, 42 01.12.15 Southwark Crown Court ordered Rekha Yadav as a person interested in confiscation proceedings concerning BG, to disclose the extent of and fpoudnation for her interest in: (1) The balance of Castlegrove’s 255.0821 account at Julius Bäer (2) Properties under the Raj Classic title, and (3) 88 Sydney Street Ms.Yadav did not respond to the Order - S18A(4) of POCA applies. Bundle 1, p820 1B-312 21.12.2015 H released on bail following JR of bail refusal decision of 20.11.2015 21.1.2015 CPS offer no evidence against H on perverting course of justice indictment 1-781 26.01.16 Re Bilt Finance (account *0840 Hinduja Bank) – Ms Gulab interviewed and stated that Mr Ajay Hinduja hadn’t opened any account for her. Her divorce proceedings were concluded, so she had no reason to hide money from her ex-husband. Bundle 1, p837 26.1.16 W served – s21 Notice to Quit from landlord- to vacate property (62 Church Lane, N2) by 26.3.16 03.03.16 Order of the UKSC re costs (Gohil v Gohil

[2016] UKSC 61

]). “The effect of its order made on 14.10.15 setting aside the order of the Court of Appeal made on 13.03.14 has been to reinstate (subject to his power to vary or discharge any directions made therein) the orders made by Moylan J on 25.09.12 and 20.11.12.” Bundle 1, p42 25.4.2016 H applies to re-open CACD PTA refusal decision following CPS leading and junior counsel withdrawing from all JI linked cases. CACD decision on 15.2.2018 30.04.16 VG’s Application for disclosure of Court documents re BG’s confiscation proceedings as affected party – unsuccessful. Bundle 1, p42 03.05.16 Order of the UKSC before JSC Neuberger, Hale, Clarke, Wilson, Sumption, Reed, Hodge – this Order replaces the Order sealed on 3.3.16. Bundle 1, p108-109 20.5.2016 Directions hearing 1 day – W in person, CPS and BG attended and represented by junior counsel) ORDER- (J Moylan 1. Foxtons estate agents (c/o: Building One, Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, London W4 5BE) are required to provide details of: a) All individuals, and on whose behalf those individuals have been acting, from whom Foxtons has received instructions since 2004 to date in respect of the letting and management of the property at 88 Sydney Street, London, SW3 6NJ; The source of all funds paid to them in respect of the management and maintenance of the property at 88 Sydney Street, London, SW3 6NJ other than from rental income, to cover the period from 2004 to date. July 2016 VG obtains Imerman documents from son, Devan. Bundle 1, p43 August 2016 VG learns that 88 Sydney Street property is left vacant, abandoned. CPS reveal that the tenancy ended and no one has come forward as the owner. Bundle 1, p43 05.08.16 Foxtons Agents provide disclosure pursuant to Order of Moylan J dated 20.05.16 (including Chronology, correspondence of dealings and rent and expenses account). Bundle 1, p43 October – December 2016 VG learns that no one has come forward as owner of 88 Sydney Street. BG submits his sister, Rekha Yadav is owner Bundle 1, p44 26.1.17 Land Register – W’s Charge under MCA 88 Sydney St - title No, NGL674406 21.02.17 Order of Moylan J. Recitals state that: [3] “Mr Sodhi confirms that he is not and has never been the owner, trustee, beneficiary or fiduciary object of a) 88 Sydney Street, London, b) Sunfor Commercial inc & c) Fougeres Trust and Mr Sodhi confirms that any suggestion to the contrary is false”. Bundle 1, p153-157 1.3.17 LOT 1 – National Crime Agency provides ordered disclosure to VG of the ‘Arlington Sharma’s Conveyance Files re 88 Sydney Street’ pursuant to [17] of the Order of Moylan J dated 21.02.17. Bundle 1, p46 10.4.17 Naik and Naik Solicitors–(India)(legal rep’s no.1 ) as acting for Rekha Yadav (H’s sister) contact W’s legal reps re her interest in 88 SS +further correspondence ensues. 12.04.17 VG issues Application for s37 Freeze Injunction re 88 Sydney Street with consent of CPS. Bundle 1, p143-145 04.05.17 Order of Mostyn J – “s37 preservation of property: 88 Sydney Street, SW3 and relevant account recitals”. Final Hearing adjourned pending findings being made in the extant confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court as to the first respondent’s benefit from crime and realisable assets Bundle 1, p158-163 1A- 46 2. If Rekha Yadav wishes to assert a beneficial interest in the property at 88 Sydney Street, London SW7 6NS, whether directly or through a company or other entity, she must apply to intervene in the present proceedings within 35 days of being served with this order. 3. In the event that Ms Yadav does not make such an application within the time permitted, the Court shall proceed on the basis that she does not wish to be heard further in respect of this issue and she shall thereafter be debarred from asserting any different beneficial interest to the one ultimately determined by a competent court of English jurisdiction in respect of the beneficial ownership of that property. 03.07.17 BG application for permission to provide family court with documents from his criminal proceedings but only re ‘Project Phoenix’ and his complaint against DC Smart and DC McDonald. Bundle 1, p50 07.07.17 Directions Hearing before Mostyn J. Bundle 1, p170-171 14.07.17 LOT 2 – National Crime Agency provided ordered disclosure of conveyance of 88 Sydney Street (Alexander Marks file) pursuant to Order of Moylan J dated 21.02.17. Bundle 1, p50 25.8.17 Rekha Yadav-deadline for intervention pursuant to para 4 of order no. 2 of J Mostyn of 4.5.17. No response nor has action ever been taken by her. 10.10.17 HHJ Tomlinson grants CPS the variation of the RO to give effect to s37 Order of Mostyn J of 4.5.17 re 88 Sydney Street and Hanne & Co costs of administration to be paid from Foxtons rental account (Southwark Crown Court). Bundle 1, p50 17.01.18 Application issued by Shearman Bowen on behalf of ‘Castlegrove Inc’ (Rekha Yadav) as purportedly the “beneficial owner” of 88 Sydney Street – to intervene and to obtain relief from sanctions of order of 4.5.17. Bundle 1, p50 23.01.18 Death of 2nd Respondent (Babulal Gohil) Bundle 1, p50 23.1.18 – 28.1.18 In India – BG, KG, and BG’s three sisters (Rekha, Sima and Sangita) arrive. VG claims that herself and her son were the subject of serious harassment by them. Sima Sud files two separate criminal complaint against VG accusing her of trespass and theft, when on the face of the Will, VG is an executor and beneficiary of the Deceased’ estate. Bundle 1, p51 23.1.18 - present All three children of the parties’ marriage sever relations with BG and his family. Bundle 1, p51 15.2.2018 CACD refuse renewed PTA application

[2018] EWCA 140

we entertain no doubt that the Gohil application to reopen the concluded proceedings must fail. It falls wholly short of meeting the criteria for the exercise of this exceptional jurisdiction. It satisfies none of the necessary conditions. There has been no real injustice; there is nothing wholly exceptional; it would not be appropriate to reopen the concluded proceedings; there is an effective alternative remedy. 1-783 1B- 23.02.18 HHJ Tomlinson Ruling in the Crown Court re variation of RO to give effect to Preservation Order of Mostyn J of 4.5.17 re payment of Hanne & Co fees. Bundle 1, p763 26.2.18 HIGHLANDER H’s mother makes false representations to the LR in her Statement of Truth and removes the form A restriction re severance from the title of ‘Highlander’  W applies for Rectification of the register and fierce litigation ensues for over 2 years. W is granted her application for rectification on 30.5.19 by J Rhys at Land Registry Tribunal & awarded costs. 28.03.18 Letter of Request : Gibraltar response re Castlegrove – the ultimate beneficial owner is said to be “Bhadresh Gohil” (Castlegrove in RO). Bundle 1, p51 28.03.18 Notification to the Family Court that Sunfor Inc has been restored as a corporate entity by Collette Kelly of Shearman Bowen Sols. Collette Kelly previously represented BG in his confiscation proceedings. They wish to take control of management and administration of 88 Sydney Street, but provide no evidence. Bundle 1, p51 April 2018 VG lodges a police complaint against BG and his family due to further and ongoing bullying, harassment and intimidation to VG and children. Bundle 1, p52 06.09.18 Post-Death Variation of the Babulal Gohil’s Will of 30.03.09 – VG surrenders her 1/3 share – sole beneficiaries are Devan, Keval and Shivani. Bundle 1, p52 8.10.2018 Shrimati Rekha Yadav grants PoA to Kamla Gohil (R3) 17.10.18 Order no.2 - Variation of s37 Order of Mostyn J dated 04.05.17 re 8 Sydney Street. Sunfor to administer the property via MrJuggapah. (remuneration provided for) Bundle 1, p181-185 17.10.2018 Mostyn J: Final Hearing listed on 1.4.2019 listed for 10 days vacated. 23.10.18 VG delivers Imerman material (‘Lot 2’) to BG. Bundle 1, p53 21.12.18 HHJ Tomlinson variation of RO granted to reflect Order no.2 (re Sunfor) of Mostyn J dated 17.10.18. Bundle 1, p766, 770 12.3.2019 Shrimati Rekha Yadav transfers her shareholding in Castlegrove Inc to Kamla Gohil (R3) a temporary holding nominee [PS5/8, #9] 01.04.19 Directions Hearing before Mostyn J – Mostyn J states to VG that “the main event is in the crown court”. Mostyn J stays VG’s claim pending confiscation. Bundle 1, p53 01.04.19 Order of Mostyn J. [3] “[VG] does not have in her possession, power or control any further confidential material belonging to the first respondent (including on computer drives, discs, memory sticks and other electronic media) and she does not believe that her son Devan has any further such material in his possession, power or control.” Bundle 1, p190-193 15.03.19 Statement of VG in respect of payment of maintenance, school fees and arrears and variation of maintenance upwards served. Bundle 1, p339-368 January 2018 – 02.02.24 VG involved in the challenge re 2nd Respondent’s Will and the Probate is blocked in both in UK and India. Bundle 1, p54 2020 Sandeep Sud (Sima Vara’s ex-husband) provides new evidence re Lombard Odier & Cie. Sandeep Sud provides VG with a copy of his SAR report dated 24.03.05 that he filed in relation to illicit activity by BG re BG’s Swiss account with Lombard Odier and Cie (Switzerland) involving his younger two sisters (Sima Vara and Sangita Ghedia). Both sisters are practicing lawyers. “Mrs Vara told me that Mr Gohil has some $4 million” in this account and that she and her sister Sangita were signatories. Sima was aware that she and her sister were participating in fraud and she was concerned about the impact of this on her career. BG had added his sister’s names to the account and then removed his own, Sangita transferred the funds out. Bundle 1, p55 14.09.20 BG’s Confiscation hearing begins (4 weeks t/e). BG loses all legal reps on 3rd effective day, confiscation then adjourned part-heard. Bundle 1, p55 11.03.21 Order for Possession of VG’s family home before DJ Dias (Barnet County Court). Bundle 1, p56 23.06.21 VG’s application for disclosure hearing before HHJ Tomlinson. Bundle 1, p56 11.11.21 Conclusion of BG’s Confiscation proceedings (pending judgment). Bundle 1, p56 03.10.22 Sunfor Director update re rental of 88 Sydney Street: “Foxtons secured a new tenant, after negotiation agreed a new contract, this was signed for two years with a break clause at 12 months from either party, rental for this next period is £7150 per month paid annually in advance.” Bundle 1, p57 28.10.22 HHJ Tomlinson delivers and circulates his ‘Findings of Fact’ document re confiscation to all parties in private. Bundle 1, p773 May 2023 BG is engaged to be married to Nitu Gulab. Bundle 1, p58 22.06.23 Hearing before Mostyn J – Gohil v Gohil and CPS re seeking to harmonise the rules on embargoed judgments. Bundle 1, p746 22.06.23 Order of Mostyn J – re-allocation of these proceedings to a new supervising judge. Bundle 1, p246-248 04.07.23 Sunfor Commercial Inc formally dissolved (tbc) Bundle 1, p60 23.07.23 Sunfor Commercial Inc (BVI) deemed dissolved. VG notified by Trident Trust on 5.10.23 serving a NOH. Bundle 1, p58 24.07.23 Confiscation Order imposed on BG (£28,191,787.15) before HHJ Tomlinson. “a. The Defendant has benefitted in the sum of £42,424,037.01. b. The available, and therefore recoverable, amount is £28,191,787.15. c. In accordance with section 10A POCA, the Court having received evidence and submissions on behalf of Edward Shamutete, Urbano Mutati, Castlegrove Inc and Imani Securities (in the case of Imani Securities subject to an adjustment as identified below), it is determined that the Defendant is the sole beneficial owner of the assets listed in the schedule to this order.” N.B. Schedule of Realisable Property attached with the Order. Bundle 1, p8, 58-59 21.08.23 CASTLEGROVE INC filed an appeal in CACD through POCA 1, challenging HHJ Tomlinson’s Order of 24.07.23 (under T20097647). Bundle 1, p69 28.09.23 BG states any hearings in Family Court should await the outcome of his appeals re HHJ Tomlinson’s ruling/order and VG’s application for LASPO. Bundle 1, p60 04.10.23 VG serves Notice of Hearing on Trident Trust (BVI) for Sunfor Commercial. Bundle 1, p60 05.10.23 Trident Trust’s response to VG’s NOH: “The company has been dormant since 1 May 2013. On 4 July 2023 the company was deemed dissolved by operation of law for non-payment of its licence fees which were due to the Registry of Corporate Affairs during the period of dormancy. Trident was deemed to have resigned as registered agent by operation of law on the date of dissolution of the company and accordingly we are no longer the registered agent for the former company”. Bundle 1, p60 10.10.23 Williams J unavailable, so hearing before Cusworth J (sitting as a DHCJ). Consent Order drawn up. Bundle 1, p264-267 23.10.23 CPS provide information re Sunfor, balance in Foxtons client account is £242,513.19. Bundle 1, p61 02.02.24 Deputy Master Lampert - Chancery Division – VG found as executrix of Estate of Babulal Gohil (Gohil v Gohil

[2024] EWHC 213 (Ch)

. I therefore pronounce for the force and validity of the Will being the last will and testament of the Deceased. I also grant reverse summary judgment in favour of the Claimant in relation to the counterclaim for revocation of the Will and recission of testamentary dispositions on the grounds of undue influence, fraud and calumny. The Will declared valid in solemn form. Inheritance Act and proprietary estoppel claims put over for trial. H represents R3. Judge comments R3 whether she understands case advanced on her behalf. The nature of the allegations made in the course of the application were of the utmost seriousness; fraud, forgery, undue influence, calumny and the court concluded there was no evidence and no prospect of evidence being obtained. It seems probable that the allegations emanated from H and that the evidence adduced was produced by him albeit in the form of a witness statement by R3 Bundle 1, p61 10.04.24 Order of Williams J. [6] “Foxtons shall pay the sum of £168,484.00 from the Foxtons rental account to the applicant’s HSBC bank account *01377469 Sort Code 40-35-30.” Bundle 1, p275-279 22.04.24 Order of Williams J. Bundle 1, p280-285 May 2024 Hanne & Co no longer represent VG. Bundle 1, p633 22.05.24 Judgment of Williams J (case no. FD02D03678) – directs case to be listed for a financial remedy final hearing. Bundle 1, p752 17.07.24 Order of Williams J. Bundle 1, p294 - 295 19.07.24 VG’s s25 Statement. VG submits that the following assets are matrimonial and predate BG’s indictment:

a. Castlegrove Inc – Julius Baer and other accounts. “Castlegrove Inc was previously known as Castlegrove Consulting Ltd. It is a matrimonial asset dating back to, I believe, 1999. It has and has had, multiple bank accounts over the years. Castlegrove accounts were used towards the purchase of the Raj Classic flats in Mumbai as well as the property at 88 Sydney Street in SW3. Bhadresh also transferred the funds from Lombard Odier and Cie (Swiss) accounts prior to closing them as part of his overall activity to conceal assets from me and the family court.”

b. Wellwick Capital SA – Bank Accounts at Banque Franck, Galland & Cie. “This was the offshore vehicle used by Bhadresh for investment in Lengau Resources plc (UK) - a mining venture. The source of funds into the account is matrimonial and a freezing injunction was granted to me by Baron J on 10 October 2008 in respect of Bhadresh's 50% share of Lengau. He also used funds from this and related accounts for his personal expenses including payment of school fees for our children.”

c. Slavonian Finance Corp – Account at Schroders Bank (Swiss) “The source of funds into this account are matrimonial including: (a) Odessa Man Ltd accounts at Schroders bank after they were closed by him, and Bhadresh’s (b) Credit Suisse HK account in the name of Ebonee Financial Ltd. The account is used to meet his personal expenses.”

d. Merrill Lynch account in USA in the name of Parabola. “This is a matrimonial asset which Bhadresh successfully concealed from me and this court previously, with the aid of his personal banker at Merrill Lynch. The account was opened a long time ago and was used by him primarily as a savings fund. From time to time however he used the account to meet his personal expenditure including holidays.”

e. Bank account at Pictet & Cie (Swiss) in the name of Sloane Capital Ltd. “This account ultimately absorbed the funds from his accounts at Lombard Odie and Cie Bank and Hemptons Holdings. The Lombard Odier and Cie funds were then transferred to his Castlegrove account with Julius Baer on the same day.”

f. Bilt Finance (BVI) account at Hinduja Bank. “The source of funds into this account are the result of various transactions undertaken by Bhadresh to move funds in order to avoid detection by me or the family court.”

g. Willard Investment Ltd (Mauritius) Account at Julius Baer Bank. “The funds sent into this account are the results of various transactions undertaken by Bhadresh to move funds in order to avoid detection by me and the family court.” Bundle 1, p606-620 25.07.24 Order of Williams J. Bundle 1, p303-304 24.08.24 BG’s s25 Statement. BG disagrees with the suggestion “that capital from “our savings” was used for me to join Vijay Sharma Solicitors in 1993 is entirely untruthful.” (Bundle 1, p639) Bundle 1, p621-645 10.10.2024 RESTORATION of corp entity : Sunfor Commericial inc (BVI) 29.10.2024 Master McQuail: Directions on R3’s Inheritance Act claim 15.11.2024 Criminal Appeal: PTA against Confiscation order refused. 1B- 248 25.11.2024 H renews PTA application 20.1.2025 DJ Mauger: W’s application under ToLATA for possession and sale of ‘Highlander’ reinstated 27.06.2025 PTA hearing in Court of Appeal re Confiscation order