The introduction of Account Freezing Orders and Account Forfeiture Notices and Orders (under the Criminal Finances Act 2017) significantly boosted the powers of law enforcement agencies’ to disrupt and seize funds efficiently and expeditiously, without requiring a prosecution or criminal conviction.
They continue to be deployed in significant volumes as part of the drive to tackle illicit finance and the suspected proceeds of crime.
We regularly advise those targeted by such orders, including commercial enterprises (such as money service businesses), high net worth individuals, politically exposed persons and their family members or close business associates. The sums involved can be substantial and swift action is usually advisable to ensure an order is appropriately challenged and the money in question is not ultimately forfeited as part of a wider investigation.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS RELATING TO ACCOUNT FREEZING AND FORFEITURE
What is an Account Freezing Order?
An Account Freezing Order (AFO) freezes specified funds in a bank, building society, e-money or payment institution account by preventing any account holder, signatory or beneficiary of the account from making withdrawals or payments for a maximum period of two years. It is a civil order made by a magistrates’ court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect all or part of the funds in the account are “recoverable property”: either the proceeds of crime or intended for use in unlawful conduct. An AFO can be granted in respect of any relevant account, whether it belongs to an individual or a business, with a credit balance of at least £1,000 (or its sterling equivalent) and failure to comply with the terms of the order may result in proceedings for contempt of court.
An AFO allows law enforcement authorities (such as the police, HMRC, SFO or NCA) to investigate the origins and destinations of money paid in and out of the account in order to determine if the funds should be forfeited (permanently retained by the Treasury) or if a wider criminal investigation should be initiated. An application for an AFO will often be triggered by a report made by the account provider to the NCA where it becomes suspicious of how an account is being used (a Suspicious Activity Report or SAR)
END
How is an Account Freezing Order obtained?
The relevant law enforcement agency submits a written application to the magistrates’ court and a date for the hearing will be set. At the hearing, the court will consider whether the grounds for granting the order have been met. At this first stage it is a low threshold – merely a “reasonable suspicion” on the part of the applicant agency that the funds in the account are recoverable property - and applications are routinely granted. Copies of the order are then served on all identifiable parties affected by it; the account holders, the account provider and those with beneficial interests in the funds.
END
Can an Account Freezing Order be granted without notice to the affected parties?
In most cases the affected parties will be unaware of the steps being taken until after the AFO has been granted and their accounts frozen. This is because the court will agree to an ex parte or without notice application at the request of the law enforcement authority if satisfied that putting the parties on notice would prejudice any subsequent application to forfeit the funds (in other words there is a risk the funds would be dissipated). In cases where the affected parties are already aware of an investigation it may be possible to make representations to the applicant agency to pre-empt a without notice application.
In addition, in some circumstances, an application for an AFO may be heard in private. This will be at the discretion of the judge and there must be sufficiently strong justification. [See R (Javadov) v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 2393 (QB)]
END
Will the court allow any living or business expenses to be paid out of the frozen account?
The court may vary an AFO (either when it makes the order or on later application by either the applicant agency or an affected party) to allow exclusions to the prohibition on making withdrawals and payments from the account. Such exclusions may allow for reasonable living expenses or to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation. When considering whether to vary an AFO or to make exclusions, the court must be mindful that the primary purpose of the AFO regime is to preserve funds for future forfeiture proceedings. Courts will therefore be careful to ensure the funds are not dissipated unnecessarily and so any application to vary an AFO must be supported by compelling evidence demonstrating there is no other way the expenses can be met. Clear lines of communication with the law enforcement authority in this regard will also be crucial.
END
Will the court allow for payment of legal expenses out of the frozen account?
The court may also vary an AFO to allow for the payment of reasonable legal expenses in respect of the AFO proceedings. An application for such a variation will be essential in many cases because there is no public funding available for cases of this type.
END
Can an Account Freezing Order be challenged after it has been made?
Any person affected by an AFO can apply to the court at any time for the order to be varied or set aside. This includes not only the account holder(s) but also third parties with an interest in the funds that are frozen. The court may exercise its discretion to set aside an AFO as it sees fit. It may be possible to demonstrate that the information provided by the law enforcement authority in its initial application – particularly if it was made without notice to the affected parties - was incorrect or incomplete and that there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting the funds are recoverable. However, persuading any court of this is a difficult task and for there to be any prospect of success an application must be supported by detailed and cogent evidence about the provenance and intended use of the frozen funds.
Notice of an application to vary or set aside an AFO must be provided to all parties to the original order who will be given an opportunity to make representations themselves.
END
Can money be paid into a bank account which is the subject of an Account Freezing Order?
An AFO does not prohibit payments into an affected account, but the applicant law enforcement agency may apply to the magistrates’ court to extend the scope of the AFO so that it covers any monies deposited after the order was first made.
END
How can the funds in a frozen account be forfeited?
Once the law enforcement agency has completed its investigation or is satisfied it has sufficient evidence linking the funds in the frozen account to criminal conduct, it may apply for all or part of the funds to be forfeited. This can be done in two ways; the issuance of an Account Forfeiture Notice or the grant of Account Forfeiture Order. Please see below for further details. Once forfeited the funds are transferred by the bank to an interest-bearing account specified by the law enforcement agency and are ultimately passed to the Treasury’s Consolidated Fund.
END
What is an Account Forfeiture Notice?
Where it is believed that forfeiture is unlikely to be contested, a law enforcement agency may issue an Account Forfeiture Notice. The notice is served on the recipients of the original AFO explaining the intention to forfeit all or part of the funds in the frozen account on the basis that the agency is satisfied the funds are the proceeds of crime or are intended for use in unlawful conduct. The notice must set out the amount to be forfeited, the period of time in which any objection must be made (a minimum of 30 days) and the address to which any objections must be sent. If there is no objection within the time limit, the funds are automatically forfeited. This process is known as administrative forfeiture because it may be done without the need for a court hearing.
END
Is it possible to challenge an Account Forfeiture Notice?
An objection to an Account Forfeiture Notice should be lodged with the law enforcement agency within the time limit set out in the notice. The law enforcement agency must then apply to the court within 48 hours either to extend the period of the original AFO or to ask the court to make an Account Forfeiture Order.
It is possible for an affected party to apply to the magistrates’ court to set aside forfeiture retrospectively, even if no objection was raised beforehand (or within the time limit). Any such application should be made within 30 days of the expiry of the time limit for objecting to the original Account Forfeiture Notice, as above, but in exceptional circumstances the court may allow an application to be made even later. The court will then consider if an Account Forfeiture Order should be made or if the funds should not be forfeited at all, in which case the funds – and any interest accrued since forfeiture – will be released.
END
What is an Account Forfeiture Order?
Rather than issuing an Account Forfeiture Notice, the law enforcement agency can instead apply for an Account Forfeiture Order. All the affected parties must be notified of such an application and it will be heard in open court. For the order to be granted, the magistrates’ court must be satisfied that the funds in the account represent the proceeds of crime or are intended for use in unlawful conduct. The standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities and there is no requirement for a criminal conviction to have been obtained against any party, but the threshold for forfeiture is higher than for the making of the AFO: the court must now be satisfied the funds are in fact the proceeds of crime rather than just accepting that the applicant agency has reasonable grounds for suspicion. Well-prepared and detailed representations at this stage are vital in order to persuade the court not to order forfeiture.
END
Is it possible to appeal an Account Forfeiture Order?
Any party to the proceedings can appeal the court’s decision on a forfeiture application. The right of appeal is to the Crown Court and notice of an intention to appeal must be within 30 days from the date of the Account Forfeiture Order. The Crown Court has the discretion to make any order it considers appropriate, and if the appeal against an Account Forfeiture Order is successful it may order the release of all or part of the funds (plus interest).
END
Can the law enforcement authority appeal the decision to not grant an Account Forfeiture Order?
The law enforcement authority can appeal the decision of the court to not grant an Account Forfeiture Order. The appeal must be made to the Crown Court, again within 30 days of the magistrates’ court decision. As soon as the magistrates’ court declines to grant the Account Forfeiture Order the original AFO will cease to be effective; however the law enforcement agency may apply for the AFO to remain in place for a further 48 hours to allow time to consider whether or not to appeal. If the agency decides to appeal the decision then the AFO will remain in place pending the outcome of the appeal.
END
Can the court make a compensation order in respect of an Account Freezing Order?
An account holder, signatory or beneficiary to the account may apply to the court for compensation where an AFO has been granted and the funds frozen but none of the money was subsequently forfeited. The court may order compensation if it is satisfied the applicant suffered loss as a result of the AFO and that the circumstances are exceptional.
END
How Account Freezing Orders work
Relevant agencies, including regional police forces, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the National Crime Agency (NCA), can apply to freeze accounts held with a bank, building society, e-money provider or payment institution where balances exceed £1,000 if the funds are suspected to be either the proceeds of criminal conduct (allegedly committed anywhere in the world) or intended for use in unlawful conduct. A magistrates’ court may grant the order whereby the account(s) in question is frozen for up to two years in order to allow an investigation to be conducted into the provenance of the money in the account.
Similar powers can be exercised in respect of cash – for more details, see our dedicated cash and seizure and detention page.
Account Forfeiture Orders
At the conclusion of, or indeed at any point during, the period of cash detention or account freezing, the authorities may apply for the relevant sums to be forfeited. Although there is a higher evidence bar to be satisfied as compared with an Account Freezing Order, crucially there is no requirement for a criminal conviction to have been obtained against any party (or even a criminal investigation to have been opened), and the courts routinely make forfeiture orders.
How we can help
We have extensive experience of:
- Advising on the lawfulness of any order;
- Mounting successful challenges to a freezing order: this may involve making an application to set aside the order or contesting an application to extend such an order. Alternatively, it is sometimes possible to engage with the relevant investigators to persuade them that the funds are clean and that the order is unnecessary;
- Appeals against forfeiture.
Our approach
We understand that the loss of access to funds can be highly disruptive and, in some cases catastrophic — financially as well as reputationally. Yet we recognise that the need for swift action should be tempered by a careful and considered strategy.
When challenging a freezing or detention order, or appealing an Account Forfeiture Order, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Even though the civil standard – the balance of probabilities – applies, in practice it is necessary to demonstrate with compelling evidence the “clean” origins of the money. This may take some time to assemble and requires skilful submissions to the court.
It can also be important to guard against adverse implications for third parties that may arise through any challenge to an order.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues mentioned above, feel free to contact one of our specialist account freezing and forfeiture lawyers.
Click here to visit our new AML Hub
A source describes the team as "on top of its game," thanks to being "exposed to tremendous cases."
Chambers and Partners
Commentators praise the group's "extremely professional, experienced, committed and diligent" approach."
Chambers and Partners
They have a very sophisticated high net worth practice and a real sensitivity to the kind of issues that high net worth individuals face,"
Chambers and Partners
Latest blogs & news
SFO Unexplained Wealth Orders – new focus for illicit finance?
On 17 January, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) secured its first Unexplained Wealth Order, in respect of a property believed to have been purchased with the proceeds of a £100 million fraud.
UK FIU report reveals more efficient and better quality SARs reporting landscape
The NCA’s UK Financial Intelligence Unit (UKFIU) has published its latest Annual Report (somewhat later in the year than usual). The UKFIU is responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating intelligence submitted through the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regime and its role is to alert law enforcement agencies, both at home and abroad, to potential instances of money laundering and terrorist financing.
What to do after a raid by the Serious Fraud Office?
Many of the SFO’s most notable recent investigations have begun with dawn raids, so-called because they normally occur very early in the morning. These raids can be a disorientating and uncomfortable experience in themselves, but as we explain further below, unfortunately they normally signal the beginning of a major SFO investigation. The period between arrest and charge – which can be lengthy in complex white-collar crime investigations – is absolutely critical. So, what should you and your legal team be doing in this period?
Expansion of failure to prevent: The theory is almost reality
For more than a decade, lawyers, academics and business representatives have been discussing the need for a new approach to corporate criminal liability for economic crime. With significant expansion of the tried and tested failure to prevent (FTP) structure now imminent, and further debate on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill scheduled for late March, there are questions still to be answered.
‘Made in China’ as Possible Supply Chain Money Laundering
It is estimated that 30% of the world’s production of cotton originates in China. Of that cotton 85% originates in Xinjiang, which is the centre of the Uyghur atrocities. Recently before the High Court, the World Uyghur Congress (“the WUC”) argued that UK authorities were under a duty to block and/or launch money laundering investigations into the many imports of Xinjiang cotton brought into the UK - many by household names in the clothing industry – because of the high likelihood of prison and forced labour forming the start of the supply chain
Major rise in SARs volume and suspect funds locked – UK FIU report
The latest Annual Report of the NCA’s UK Financial Intelligence Unit (UKFIU), published this week, makes interesting reading. The UKFIU is responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating intelligence submitted through the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regime and its role is to alert law enforcement agencies, both at home and abroad, to potential instances of money laundering and terrorist financing.
The Gambling Commission’s focus on AML failings shows no signs of abating with the publication of new regulatory actions
With the back-to-back release of public statements, regulatory actions by the Gambling Commission are coming thick and fast. On 17 January the Commission announced it had agreed a regulatory settlement with the online gaming company, Vivaro Limited trading as Vbet, in respect of its AML and responsible gambling failings. Following swiftly on its heels was the statement of action taken against another online gaming company, TonyBet, for imposing unfair terms and for its AML and responsible gambling failings.
FCA anti-money laundering fines continue to mount up
Over the past few months, the FCA has handed out a string of significant financial penalties relating to anti-money laundering (AML) systems and controls failures at financial institutions in the UK.
Law Commission recommendations for confiscation reform: Is there the will to find a way?
Following a lengthy period of research and consultation, the Law Commission (‘the Commission’) has published its final report and recommendations for the reform of Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: the post-conviction confiscation regime (‘the report).
Kingsley Napley contributes to significant Law Commission criminal justice reform project
Kingsley Napley contributes to significant Law Commission criminal justice reform project. The Law Commission has today published its long-awaited recommendations for reform of the UK’s post-conviction confiscation regime. Work on the project began in November 2018, after the Home Office asked the Law Commission to review the regime found in Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
First HMRC fine for an Art Market Participant
Since the introduction of the Money Laundering Regulations in 2017, HMRC have maintained a public list of businesses within the regulated sector who have breached their AML obligations. Aside from being a warning of the perils of non-compliance, the identities of the publicly named and shamed businesses offer a glimpse into HMRC’s priorities. The eagle-eyed observer of the latest update to this list will note that it includes for the first time a business within the art market sector.
FCA as gatekeeper of UK crypto AML regime: two years in
On 10 January 2020, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) became the anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) supervisor for UK cryptoasset firms. Two years in, how effectively is it performing its role as the gatekeeper of the new registration regime?
Gambling Sector: Compliance and Enforcement Report reveals concerns over weak AML controls
On 9 December the Gambling Commission published its annual Compliance and Enforcement Report for the financial year 2020–2021. This confirmed that the period was particularly active for the Enforcement and Compliance teams, with a record total of £32.1 million being paid by 15 gambling businesses as a result of fines or regulatory settlements. This included over £1.3m being paid by White Hat Gaming Ltd, after a January 2020 review by the Commission of its operating licence revealed inadequate policies and produces in respect of anti-money laundering (“AML”) and safer gambling.
Met Police appetite for Account Freezing Orders undimmed by pandemic
Account Freezing Orders (AFrOs) are a measure introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and have been available to a wide range of law enforcement agencies since February 2018.
The FCA proposes new listing guidance for cannabis-related businesses – a positive step for investors concerned about the Proceeds of Crime Act
In September 2020 the FCA published a statement regarding the listing of cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) in the UK. Since then several CRBs have been admitted to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and appetite for investments in the medicinal cannabis industry continues to grow.
AML and the Art Market: HMRC publishes its first risk assessment
Many art dealers, galleries and auction houses are now subject to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime and are defined as art market participants (AMPs) - see our related blog The compulsory embrace of the art market by the UK's Anti-Money Laundering regime. On 28 June HMRC published its first assessment of the key areas that AMPs should consider when conducting their own assessments of the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing to which their business is subject.
Buying property with crypto assets: Can it ever be justified?
A Director at the National Crime Agency recently voiced concern about crypto assets being used to fund property purchases in the UK. The NCA’s Nigel Leary was quoted by The Times as saying: “Anything purchased with crypto assets I’d be slightly sceptical about. I’d like to see why they’re being done in that way and what the requirement is for that anonymity, and why it needed to be done in a crypto transaction.”
Will the CPS’ decision to update its guidance mean an increase in prosecutions for failure to disclose under section 330 of POCA 2002?
Recent guidance issued by the CPS on the offence of ‘failure to disclose’ under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA 2002’) states that it is now “possible to charge an individual under section 330 even though there is insufficient evidence to establish that money laundering was planned or has taken place.”
To date, there have seldom been prosecutions for this offence but this guidance – effectively removing a significant element of the offence - suggests that the CPS may be looking to bring more charges in the future.
The risks and penalties of money laundering for charities and how to guard against it
Money launderers will look for any opportunity to take advantage of organisations with weak financial controls in order to launder their ill-gotten gains. Charities, trustees, employees and volunteers who knowingly or unwittingly assist money launderers, or who fail to report suspicions, may commit a criminal offence and find themselves liable to prosecution.
HMRC’s record fine for money laundering breaches
HMRC monitors over 30,000 businesses to ensure their compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (the regulations). Businesses which are found to have breached their regulatory obligations are at risk of civil and even criminal penalties.
You may also be interested in:
Account Freezing Orders and Account Forfeiture Orders Insights
Listen to the Podcast
Insights into Account Freezing Orders & Account Forfeiture Orders - Episode 2: Account Forfeiture Orders
Blog
Met Police appetite for Account Freezing Orders undimmed by pandemic
Ed Smyth

