020 7792 5649

Buy & sell cryptocurrency with SelachiiLearn more
Hi, How Can We Help You?

English Judge Rules On £67 Million Latvian Bank Fraud

When reading the case below, I am sure this Russian gentleman will never return to the UK. If he does, he will be arrested and placed into prison.

The case is interesting because it deals with cross border litigation. I always find such matter of interest because it is a myth that law from other jurisdictions cannot be used in the Courts in England and Wales.

The case shows how the court in London made a ruling under Latvian law. What impresses me most about such matters are the judges ability to understand law from other jurisdictions and apply it correctly. I openly admit I am no expert (in fact, have no idea) how Latvian law works.

I would say the moral of this story is not to flee your own jurisdiction to try and escape justice. In fact, the real moral is not to commit fraud.

Commercial judges in London are no strangers to dealing with the fall-out from fraud and corruption around the world. In one striking case, a judge found that a Russian businessman had ripped off a Latvian bank, of which he was formerly the majority owner, to the tune of about £67 million.

The bank’s liquidators pursued the businessman to England in respect of eight very substantial transactions which had been carried out whilst he was in control of its business. Ruling on the case under Latvian law, the judge found that, in each case, loans had been advanced to borrowers who were closely associated with the businessman which had not been repaid or otherwise recovered.

The transactions were not carried out at arm’s length and were procured dishonestly by the businessman in breach of the duties that he owed the bank. The court noted that a pattern had emerged of him subordinating the bank’s interests to his own and repeatedly abusing his position of influence for his own private advantage.

The businessman had not cooperated with the English proceedings and had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court. However, he had escaped justice by absenting himself from the jurisdiction. The judge entered judgment against him for the sums claimed by the liquidators, plus interest.

Get legal advice

Complete the form below and we will be in touch to arrange a consultation.

Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
Invalid Input
lrs logo 2016MLA 2017 18 Shortlisted 2

Want Selachii’s help?

Call us now

020 7792 5649

arrange a consultation

Accreditations

MLA 2017 18 Shortlisted 2