Fraude

Bienvenue sur la page d'accueil fraude de Law-Now.

Sur cette page, vous pouvez accéder àdes articles et des publications relatifs au fraude, rédigés par les experts de CMS.

Pour rester informés des dernières évolutions, veuillez ajouter cette page à vos favoris sur votre mobile ou vous inscrire pour recevoir les eAlerts.

eAlerts Récentes

  •  
    27/05/2024
    Europe

    Aven v Council (T-301/22) and Fridman v Council (T-304/22)

    IntroductionThe EU and many other countries impose financial sanctions on individuals. These people, who are often wealthy businessmen with ties to particular governments, are “designated” under the relevant sanctions regime. The consequences of such designation are usually dire and, usually, any challenge to such a designation will be extremely difficult.However legal challenges are possible in the EU and other jurisdictions, and sometimes succeed. A recent example is the case of Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, who have persuaded a lower court of the EU to overturn their designation...
    Lire la suite
  •  
    18/04/2024
    United Kingdom

    Transparency: ECCTA 2023 and Register of Overseas Entities update

    The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), which is aimed at tackling economic crime and preventing abuse of corporate structures in the UK, will not only fundamentally reform the administrative requirements for UK companies, limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships generally, but will also expand the requirements of the Register of Overseas Entities (ROE) regime for overseas entities holding or acquiring UK real estate.  The ROE is a register at Companies House which came into effect on 1 August 2022. Here are some FAQs providing information about...
    Lire la suite
  •  
    17/04/2024
    United Kingdom

    APP fraud – Quincecare duty claims against banks replaced by new “retrieval duty” claims

    The recent decision in CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and another [2024] EWHC 581 (KB), demonstrates how Claimants are repositioning claims against banks arising from authorised push payment (APP) fraud from breach of Quincecare duty claims to so-called “retrieval duty” claims.To date, the Courts have been reluctant to strike out such claims on a summary basis allowing them to proceed to trial. It is therefore likely that claimants will continue to frame claims against banks on this basis until the Courts determine the substantive merits of such claims.APP fraud...
    Lire la suite
  •  
    27/11/2023
    United Kingdom

    Video surveillance in personal injury cases - QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton

    An individual who exaggerated his injuries following an accident at work has been found in contempt of court and sentenced to 10 months, following the use of surveillance footage by insurer, QBE.BackgroundOn 31 July 2023, the court determined whether QBE UK Limited’s (“QBE”) application for permission to commence contempt proceedings against Mr Mark Hilton would be granted. Originally, Mr Hilton had issued proceedings, seeking damages of £600,000, following an accident at work. Within the defence, liability was admitted and proceedings, therefore, progressed in respect of...
    Lire la suite
  •  
    27/10/2023
    International

    In overturning USD 11 billion award for fraud, High Court invites discussion on arbitration’s ability to resolve large disputes involving states

    On 23 October, in The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm), Mr Justice Robin Knowles found that an arbitration award for USD 11 billion had been “obtained by fraud” and thus was “contrary to public policy.” While the Court has yet to decide whether the award should be entirely set aside or remitted to the arbitral tribunal, Mr Justice Knowles invited discussion upon how his factual findings touched upon several key issues central to the rule of law and the conduct of arbitration including the ability of the arbitral...
    Lire la suite
  •  
    06/06/2023
    England and Wales

    Limitation periods in fraud claims: Court of Appeal clarification

    IntroductionThe Court of Appeal (“CA”) has recently considered the application of s.32(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 (“LA 1980”) which provides that where an action is based on the fraud of a defendant the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the fraud. This means that in a claim based on the tort of deceit, where the limitation period is 6 years, the claimant has 6 years from discovery of the fraud, or from when the fraud could have been discovered with reasonable diligence, to...
    Lire la suite