An unexplained wealth order, UWO is the latest weapon available to the authorities that seek to take assets from those they suspect of wrongdoing. If you are a high net worth individual (HNWI), company or trust facing a UWO it is vitally important that you respond carefully and intelligently. Only by doing this can you maximise your chances of keeping what is yours.
Rahman Ravelli has the all-important experience and expertise in this area of law. We are the logical firm to come to for any HNWI or organisation that needs to defend their assets because they are being targeted by a UWO.
As a firm that was the first to take civil recovery cases to the likes of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court, we have received the highest ranking in national and international legal guides. Chambers and Partners, one of the most prestigious international legal guides, classes Rahman Ravelli as one of a very small, elite band of firms that excel in this challenging area of law. It names our solicitors as being among the very best in the UK in this legal field. Our accolades and award wins are due to our ability to think innovatively and act decisively for clients.
Introduced into UK law in January 2018 by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, a UWO requires an individual or organisation to explain how they came to possess an asset. Failure to provide an explanation considered adequate by the authority that has obtained the UWO will see the asset classed as “recoverable property”. This will lead to efforts to have it taken from them via a civil recovery order issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The Serious Fraud Office SFO, the National Crime Agency (NCA), HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are the authorities that can apply to the High Court for a UWO for any assets valued at more than £50,000. The NCA is the main agency that handles UWO applications.
When considering the application, a High Court judge must decide whether the person or organisation against whom a UWO is sought is a politically exposed person (PEP) who is not a citizen of the European Economic Area, a person suspected of serious crime here or abroad or someone connected to a person suspected of serious crime here or abroad.
For a UWO application to be successful, a criminal investigation does not have to have been started. A UWO can even be applied for by an authority on a without notice basis, which means that the application is made to the court without those affected by it being notified.
But UWOs can be challenged. The subject of one has to act swiftly and take precisely the right steps in a way and at a time that maximises their chances of a successful challenge.
Rahman Ravelli is a market leader in challenging all types of orders brought against companies and individuals. We act with speed, intelligence and strategy to challenge all assumptions made by the authorities and attack every weakness in any case brought against our clients. Our ability to think outside of the box and tackle the authorities’ claims at every stage has made us the first stop for many HNWIs facing official challenges to their right to own their assets.
Elsewhere on these pages you can read more about UWOs. But what is important to remember is that Rahman Ravelli is a recognised leader in the area of law to which UWOs are the latest addition. That is why we are the very best people to come to if you are facing a UWO.
An Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) is a civil investigative order introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and governed by sections 362A-362T of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It requires a respondent to explain the nature and extent of their interest in specified property and to explain how they obtained the funds to acquire it. UWOs are obtained by enforcement agencies — including the NCA, HMRC, the SFO, the FCA, and the CPS — from the High Court.
There are two categories of respondent for a UWO. The first is a politically exposed person (PEP) — a non-EEA individual who holds, or has held, a prominent public position, or a family member or close associate of such a person. The second is any person reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime (broadly defined). The NCA must also show that the value of the property exceeds £50,000 and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent's known lawful income is insufficient to enable them to have obtained the property.
Once a UWO is served, the respondent must provide the required information within a specified time (commonly 60 days, but the court can set a different period). In many cases, an Interim Freezing Order (IFO) is obtained simultaneously, preventing the respondent from dealing with the property while the UWO is in force. If the respondent fails to comply with the UWO without good reason, the property is presumed to be recoverable property and the NCA (or other authority) can proceed to seek a civil recovery order.
No. A UWO does not require the enforcement authority to demonstrate that the property represents the proceeds of crime. It is an investigative tool — the purpose is to require the respondent to provide an explanation. The authority must show that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent's known lawful income is insufficient to have acquired the property. Whether that explanation gives rise to civil recovery proceedings depends on whether the explanation is satisfactory.
Yes. A UWO can be challenged by applying to the High Court to vary or discharge the order. Grounds for challenge include: that the statutory requirements for making the order were not met; that the property was in fact lawfully acquired and the explanation requirement is unnecessary; that the authority has not demonstrated the requisite reasonable grounds; or that compliance with the order would breach the respondent's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications to vary or discharge are complex and require specialist legal advice.
An Interim Freezing Order (IFO) is an asset-freezing order that is typically obtained alongside a UWO. It prevents the respondent from dealing with the property subject to the UWO while the order is in force, ensuring that the asset is preserved pending the provision of an explanation and any subsequent civil recovery proceedings. An IFO can itself be challenged on the standard grounds applicable to freezing orders, including the strength of the underlying case and the degree of risk of dissipation.
UWOs were introduced in January 2018 and the early experience of enforcement authorities was mixed — a high-profile case involving a Politically Exposed Person was successfully defended in 2020 when the High Court found that the NCA had not conducted adequate due diligence before seeking the order. Subsequent UWO applications have been more carefully prepared by the NCA, and the tool remains an active part of the UK's economic crime enforcement armoury, particularly in cases involving PEPs from high-corruption countries and individuals connected to serious organised crime.
A UWO is a serious and time-sensitive legal instrument. The obligation to respond within the timeframe specified, combined with the simultaneous operation of a freezing order, creates immediate practical and legal pressure. The consequences of a failure to provide an adequate response — or of providing an inadequate one — can be severe, including the presumption that the property is recoverable. Specialist solicitors can assess whether the UWO meets the statutory requirements, advise on what a satisfactory explanation must contain, and challenge the order or its associated freezing measures if the grounds to do so exist.
