UK: Banks May Have To Prove POCA "Suspicions" When Delaying Carrying Out Instructions

Last Updated: 9 February 2010
Article by Omar Qureshi

In a judgment handed down on 4 February, the Court of Appeal held that a bank which makes an authorised disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), preventing it complying with a customer's payment instruction, may have to prove its suspicions at trial – summary disposal of the question without disclosure and evidence is not appropriate. This decision raises important issues for bank money laundering procedures.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

In a judgment handed down on 4 February, the Court of Appeal held that a bank which makes an authorised disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), preventing it complying with a customer's payment instruction, may have to prove its suspicions at trial – summary disposal of the question without disclosure and evidence is not appropriate. This decision raises important issues for bank money laundering procedures.

Relevant legal provisions

Where regulated firms, including banks, suspect money laundering in connection with a transaction with which they are concerned, they can avoid liability if, before carrying out the transaction, they make an authorised disclosure to the relevant authorities (under section 338 POCA), and have obtained appropriate consent to continue. Where a bank makes an authorised disclosure in connection with a customer's payment instruction and the authorities have either: (i) not given notice within 7 working days of their refusal to continue with the transaction; or (ii) have refused in that period but have not within the following 31 day "moratorium period" obtained an order freezing the account, the bank must then carry out the customer's instruction.

It is a further offence under section 333 POCA, called "tipping off", to disclose information to anyone knowing or suspecting it may prejudice an investigation that may be conducted following the authorised disclosure.


The Claimant, Mr Shah was a wealthy businessman with interests in Zimbabwe. He had held accounts with HSBC ("H Bank") in London and Geneva for some years. In July 2006 he transferred $28m to his London account from an account with a different bank, explaining that this was to be for a short period of time; the monies would then be transferred back to the original account. In September, following Mr Shah's instruction to pay the funds back to the original account, H Bank said it could not do so as it was "complying with its UK statutory obligations" – i.e. H Bank had reported a suspicious transaction and was awaiting clearance as required under the POCA procedure. Consent to make the transfer was obtained on 2 October 2006 and the transfer was effected the next day.

In the following months, Mr Shah requested various transfers from his H Bank accounts, some of which were made. Three instructions were delayed, again on the basis of "statutory obligations" following authorised disclosures; in each case, the payment instructions were eventually complied with after consent was received from the authorities.

In November 2006, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe ("RBZ") contacted Mr Shah asking him to explain the investigations into his affairs – how they had become aware of the investigations was not certain. They later sought information as to why his accounts had been frozen. Mr Shah and his legal advisers sought further details from H Bank about their actions and communications with the authorities, but the bank refused to disclose this. Mr Shah claimed that this prevented his complying with RBZ's requests for more information, which resulted in RBZ seizing his assets, causing losses of approximately $300m.

Mr Shah commenced proceedings against H Bank for those losses. The bank relied in its defence on its suspicions concerning Mr Shah's transfer requests and the obligations this entailed under section 338 POCA and to avoid any disclosure to Mr Shah that could amount to "tipping off". Mr Shah put H Bank to strict proof of the suspicions it claimed to have. He also claimed that it would be irrational for the bank to suspect him of money laundering, that any suspicion was negligently self-induced and/or mistaken and that any automated suspicion generated by a computer programme would not meet the POCA requirements. He did not, however, allege bad faith against the bank.

The bank sought and obtained summary judgment in January 2009, the lower court judge relying heavily on the Court of Appeal's decision in K Ltd v. Nat West Bank Ltd [2007] 1 WLR 311. Having dismissed the various claims of irrationality etc, the Court found that, absent a claim of bad faith – which was not being made – there was nothing left to claim and so the claim was dismissed. Mr Shah appealed.

The Court of Appeal's findings

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's findings on irrationality, negligent or mistaken suspicion and automatic computer-generated suspicion. However, they allowed Mr Shah's appeal that the case was not sufficiently straightforward to be dealt with summarily. Lord Justice Longmore, giving the leading judgment, said that it was for the bank to prove its case that it had the relevant suspicion and that the normal way for that to be done was via disclosure and evidence adduced at trial: "any claim by a customer that his bank has not executed his instructions is, on the face of it, a strong claim if the instructions have not, in fact, been executed... It is only when the bank says that it suspects the customer was money-laundering that any defence to the claim begins to emerge... there is... no reason why the bank should not be required to prove the important fact of suspicion in the ordinary way at trial by first making relevant disclosure and then calling either primary or secondary evidence from relevant witnesses".

The bank argued that, in light of K Ltd v. Nat West Bank, no court would ever expect or require the bank's employees to give evidence on the question of suspicion once it had been raised, so that there was no point in requiring a trial as it could only ever result in the bank succeeding.

The Court distinguished K Ltd v. Nat West Bank (a judgment also given by Longmore LJ). That was a case where the bank refused to carry out a payment instruction during the 31-day moratorium period under POCA when clearance for the transaction was initially refused following an authorised disclosure. The customer sought an immediate injunction requiring the bank to make the payment; this was refused because it would have effectively required the bank to break the law by breaching the moratorium. The scope for disclosure by the bank in that case was also very limited because it ran the risk of breaching the tipping-off offence. That effectively meant that only the bank's legal adviser would be able to give evidence and any cross-examination of him would be pointless.

This case was quite different. K Ltd was not authority for the argument that where a customer brought non-summary proceedings against a bank, the bank can obtain reverse summary relief simply by authorising its solicitor to say in a witness statement that various unidentified people in the bank had a suspicion of money laundering. By the time of any trial of that claim, the tipping off offence was unlikely to remain relevant and it would be known whether any investigation was ongoing, which disclosure in the proceedings could prejudice (on the facts it appeared there was no ongoing investigation). Therefore, the bank could be required to evidence its claim that it had the relevant suspicion without breaching POCA.

The bank had argued that no court should ever order disclosure of relevant documents relating to the bank's suspicion in this regard, especially disclosure relating to the bank's report to SOCA. The Court of Appeal said that this amounted to saying the case is "completely unjusticiable" and that the bank must always win. That could not be right; the Court thought the question of what should be disclosed should be decided on its merits at the disclosure stage of the proceedings, not summarily at the start.

The Court also considered various other arguments raised by Mr Shah. In particular, they found on the facts that the bank had not delayed in making the authorised disclosure. However, this finding carries with it an implication that a delay by the bank could have amounted to a breach of duty to their customer. Mr Shah also alleged that the bank owed him a duty as agent to keep him informed about the state of his affairs; this duty was breached by the bank failing to respond to his requests to explain why his instructions were not honoured. The bank continued to refuse to give this information even after it clearly believed that any investigations by the authorities had been concluded, so that there could be no question of prejudicing any investigation. The Court of Appeal held that, on the facts, this claim was sufficiently arguable that it should go to trial – raising the possibility that the Court may find the bank had an implied obligation to that effect.


It is far from certain whether Mr Shah's claims will succeed at trial and whether the bank will ultimately have to make any substantial disclosure regarding its suspicions raised with the authorities – various privilege grounds may ultimately be relied on, including public interest immunity. Nevertheless, the judgment should be carefully considered by banks in connection with their money laundering procedures.

Banks may now have to justify in court their suspicions of money laundering that result in delays to their complying with customer instructions – a potentially costly exercise, regardless of the outcome. This raises issues as to how suspicions arise and how the bank documents and deals with them internally. This could require changes to bank money laundering procedures and training of staff involved in making decisions in this area. If disclosure has to be made in a particular case, this could raise the prospect of further claims against the bank should the documents suggest the bank delayed unreasonably in acting on their suspicions, again raising the prospect of costly and time-consuming litigation.

Importantly, banks will also have to consider very carefully, and reconsider over time, whether any refusal to provide information to a customer regarding an authorised disclosure and/or delay in complying with instructions is justified by reliance on the tipping off offence. Again, this raises issues for training and bank processes.

Case: Jayesh Shah & anor v. HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd2010] EWCA Civ 31 (

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 05/02/2010.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.