Unexplained Wealth Orders: Dual Criminality and Overseas Money Laundering in NCA v GKC

Civil asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) increasingly involves investigating cross-border criminal conduct. This presents challenges for law enforcement, particularly if the jurisdictions involved are not amenable to international cooperation requests. The recent Administrative Court’s decision in National Crime Agency v GKC (No 1) provides important clarification on how Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) operate where the alleged serious crime is overseas money laundering.

The High Court refused an application to discharge a UWO and associated Interim Freezing Order (IFO), confirming the correct approach to dual criminality and the broad evaluative discretion afforded to enforcement authorities when making enquiries before applying for a UWO. These enquiries often have to be made by law enforcement agencies at pace, particularly where there is a dissipation risk associated with the property. The judgment strengthens the effectiveness of UWOs as an investigative tool in complex, cross‑border cases.

Background

In July 2025, the National Crime Agency (NCA) obtained a UWO and IFO in respect of assets worth approximately £6 million, including two UK properties and multiple UK bank accounts. The assets had been acquired when the respondent was aged 19 and 21, while in the UK on a student visa. 

The respondent applied to discharge the orders, arguing (among other things) that:

• The dual criminality requirement had not been satisfied because the alleged predicate offences underlying the suspected money laundering were said not to constitute offences under the law of England and Wales; and

• The NCA had failed to make adequate prior enquiries, including with conveyancing solicitors and overseas law enforcement authorities.

The High Court rejected those arguments. 

Dual criminality and overseas money laundering

A central issue was how the dual criminality requirement applies where the alleged serious crime is overseas money laundering. 

The High Court confirmed that, where overseas money laundering is relied upon, dual criminality applies to both: 

1. The money laundering offence itself; and 

2. The underlying predicate offence is said to have generated the criminal property. 

As a matter of law, the conduct said to have generated the property must amount to an offence under both the law of England and Wales and the law of the foreign jurisdiction. This approach follows the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Wieromiejczyk v DPP.

Importantly, however, the High Court rejected the suggestion that an enforcement authority must identify or prove that every conceivable predicate offence satisfies the dual criminality test. It is sufficient that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that at least some of the unlawful conduct generating the relevant property would constitute criminal offences in both jurisdictions.

On the facts, the statutory requirement was met. The NCA’s evidential case included conduct amounting to online scam frauds, which would plainly be criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. 

Scope of enquiries before applying for a UWO

A further challenge focused on whether the NCA had failed to make “proper enquiries” before applying for the UWO, specifically that it had not engaged with conveyancing solicitors involved in the property transactions or pursuing additional overseas enquiries.

The High Court reaffirmed that enforcement authorities enjoy a broad evaluative discretion in deciding how to conduct investigations prior to seeking a UWO. While a material failure to pursue obvious lines of enquiry may justify discharge (as in NCA v Baker), the statutory regime does not require authorities to exhaust all alternative investigative avenues before seeking compulsory disclosure from the respondent. 

The respondent also argued that the NCA had placed improper reliance on open-source media reporting concerning overseas criminal proceedings and should instead have obtained confirmation directly from foreign law enforcement agencies. That argument was firmly rejected. The High Court confirmed that there is no legal requirement for reasonable grounds for suspicion to be supported by primary evidence from foreign authorities. The NCA was entitled to rely on open-source material, particularly where its potential limitations had been candidly disclosed to the High Court.

On the facts, the enquiries undertaken by the NCA were sufficient.

Scope of enquiries and fresh material 

The High Court also noted that although an application to discharge a UWO permits the High Court to consider fresh evidence, this does not impose an obligation on the NCA to pursue open-ended or exhaustive enquiries after the order has been made.

The correct focus remains on whether:

• The statutory conditions were satisfied at the time the UWO was granted; and

• On the evidence as it stands, those conditions continue to be met.

Why the decision matters 

The judgment reinforces the robustness of the UWO regime and confirms the High Court’s willingness to support its use in cases involving complex, international criminality when the law enforcement agency needs to move at pace to protect an asset from dissipation and progress its civil recovery investigation. 

As a result of the NCA’s success in fending off the discharge application, the properties will remain frozen on an interim basis, and the respondent must provide a detailed explanation of the source of the funds used to acquire the assets by 10 April 2026. 

UWOs are particularly useful where respondents are located outside the jurisdiction and therefore beyond the reach of other investigative orders. A failure to comply with a UWO, without reasonable excuse, triggers a rebuttable presumption that the property is recoverable, significantly strengthening any subsequent application for a Property Freezing Order under section 245A POCA and, ultimately, a civil recovery claim under Part 5 of POCA.

Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using civil recovery powers to investigate and restrain assets suspected to have been obtained unlawfully without first securing a criminal conviction. This latest decision should bolster their confidence when doing so. We recently reported on the Crown Prosecution Service securing its first UWO and IFO over a London property portfolio valued at more than £81 million.

How we can help 

At Burges Salmon, we specialise in civil fraud and asset recovery. Our team advises on the legal, technical and strategic aspects of investigating, freezing and recovering property, providing tailored guidance to support clients through every stage of the asset recovery process. If you would like to discuss any issues or themes arising from this development, please contact Rhiannon Price and Eve Jenkins.