You Can Run, But You Cannot Hide Your Assets, Even After Twenty-three Years

Most people assume that once a financial settlement has been approved by the court, the matter is finished. The assets have been divided, the paperwork signed, and both parties move on with their lives.

That assumption depends on one crucial thing. Both people must have given full and frank financial disclosure, telling the truth about what they own.

A recent High Court judgment shows that where one spouse deliberately conceals wealth, a settlement thought to be final can still unravel decades later.

A settlement built on a lie

Varsha and Bhadresh Gohil divorced in 2004. Mrs Gohil accepted a lump sum of £270,000 because she believed she had little choice. She suspected there was more money than her husband had disclosed, but suspicion alone is not evidence. Without proof, and faced with the prospect of continuing litigation, she accepted the settlement to bring the matter to an end. That single decision would set in motion one of the longest-running financial remedy cases ever to come before the English courts.

Mr Gohil, a solicitor with a successful commercial practice in the West End, had told the court his only significant asset was a one-third share in an offshore account. In reality, he was operating a web of companies and bank accounts stretching across Switzerland, Mauritius, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and beyond, through which substantial sums moved largely unseen. Years later, it emerged that some of this activity was connected to serious criminal conduct. Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering and forgery, sentenced to ten years in prison, and struck off as a solicitor. A Confiscation Order was made against him, ultimately fixed at just under £28 million.

Reopening a settlement that was never final

Mrs Gohil went back to court, arguing that her husband had never told the truth about what he owned. A judge agreed with her in 2012. The Court of Appeal then sided with Mr Gohil and overturned that decision, only for the Supreme Court to step in three years later and restore it. The Supreme Court’s message was unambiguous. Even setting aside the more contentious evidence, there was more than enough to show that Mr Gohil had hidden the truth from the court back in 2004.

What followed was more than a decade of further litigation, much of it running in parallel with the criminal confiscation proceedings against Mr Gohil, since the same pool of assets was potentially subject to both the Wife’s claim and the state’s claim to the proceeds of crime. It was not until 2025, in a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Williams, that the financial remedy claim was finally determined, some twenty-three years after the divorce petition was first issued.

What the judge found

The scale of the fact-finding exercise facing the court was extraordinary. The judge described a volume of material running to some 9,000 pages and heard evidence over several weeks, much of it turning on the credibility of Mr Gohil himself, who represented himself throughout the hearing. Mr Justice Williams did not mince his words in his assessment of him, concluding that he was “a profoundly dishonest and evasive witness whose account could not be relied on save where supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence from a source independent of the Husband himself.”

Crucially, the case did not simply hinge on the criminal conviction. The court had to work out, on the ordinary civil standard of the balance of probabilities, which of the assets identified in the confiscation proceedings had their roots in the marriage, as opposed to representing wealth generated afterwards through criminal conduct. This required an intricate tracing exercise across numerous corporate structures and bank accounts, several of which were also claimed by third parties who said the funds belonged to them rather than to Mr Gohil. The judge rejected most of those third-party claims, finding a consistent pattern in which Mr Gohil had used family members and business associates as nominees to obscure his own beneficial ownership.

The outcome was a lump sum award to Mrs Gohil of £6.83 million, representing a significant majority share of the assets found to have a matrimonial connection. It was not, however, the whole of the £28 million confiscation pot. Some of what the state recovered was found to derive purely from post-separation criminal activity with no link back to the marriage, and public policy generally prevents the court from distributing assets that represent the direct proceeds of crime.

Why this case matters for anyone negotiating a settlement

For couples going through divorce, and for the lawyers advising them, Gohil is a powerful illustration of several enduring principles.

A settlement is only as sound as the disclosure underpinning it. Mrs Gohil accepted a modest lump sum in 2004 precisely because she could not prove what she suspected. Two decades later, that suspicion was vindicated, and the court was prepared to unpick a settlement that had, on its face, brought matters to a close. Finality in divorce proceedings depends entirely on both parties telling the truth about what they have.

In financial remedy proceedings, both parties are expected to provide a detailed picture of their finances. That usually includes bank accounts, savings, investments, pensions, businesses, property, debts and sources of income, along with the supporting documents that evidence them. The court, and the other party, are entitled to rely on that information being complete and accurate when negotiating or deciding a settlement.

Complex structures do not put assets beyond reach. Mr Gohil’s arrangements spanned multiple jurisdictions and used trusts, nominee shareholders and offshore companies to create distance between himself and his wealth. None of this ultimately protected him. Where a party cannot give a credible, evidenced account of the source of funds passing through accounts under their control, the court is entitled to draw adverse inferences against them. In practical terms, that can mean the court concludes that missing information would have been damaging to the person refusing to provide it.

Silence and evasion carry consequences. Several of the individuals who claimed a beneficial interest in the disputed assets chose not to give oral evidence and were not tested in cross-examination. The court treated their absence, and the gaps in their documentary accounts, as a significant factor weighing against their claims. A party who wants a court to accept their version of events is generally best served by being prepared to stand behind it under questioning.

Criminal findings do not simply transfer across to the family court. Although the confiscation proceedings against Mr Gohil were of real evidential value, the family court did not treat every finding in those proceedings as automatically binding when working out what should be shared with his wife. The judge undertook his own independent assessment, applying ordinary property law principles rather than the statutory assumptions that operate in criminal confiscation cases. This distinction matters for anyone assuming that a criminal conviction alone will resolve a related financial dispute.

Pursuing concealed assets can take a very long time and demands a proportionate approach. Twenty-three years, extensive forensic accounting evidence and multiple layers of litigation were needed to reach a final outcome in this case. The sums at stake justified that scale of effort, but for most people facing suspected non-disclosure, the sensible course is to weigh the likely benefit of investigation and enforcement against its cost and duration before committing to a long fight.

What if you suspect assets are being hidden?

Concerns about hidden assets tend to arise in recognisable ways. A spouse’s income may not appear to match their lifestyle. A family business may seem to have been undervalued in the disclosure process. Accounts that were once mentioned may suddenly disappear from the picture. Money may have been transferred to relatives shortly before or during proceedings, or offshore interests may emerge unexpectedly through a chance remark or an overlooked document. None of these things proves dishonesty on their own, but together they can point towards a fuller financial picture than has been disclosed. Where that happens, those concerns should be explored properly, rather than ignored or assumed to be evidence of wrongdoing.

Equally, those with family companies, shareholdings, trusts or overseas assets should not assume that complexity itself creates suspicion. Proper disclosure, supported by evidence, allows legitimate wealth to be understood rather than misunderstood. Most complicated financial affairs are exactly what they appear to be, and thorough, transparent disclosure is what allows that to be demonstrated.

Why full disclosure matters

Gohil should not be read as suggesting every concealed asset will eventually come to light. What it does show is that where significant non-disclosure is uncovered, the courts have both the power and the willingness to revisit settlements where material non-disclosure has undermined the fairness of the original order.

The Gohil litigation demonstrates both the strength and the limits of the family justice system. It shows that deliberate concealment can eventually be uncovered, even many years later. It also shows the enormous personal, emotional and financial cost of getting to that point.

None of this would be necessary if both parties complied with their duty of full and frank financial disclosure from the outset. Every person involved in financial remedy proceedings must provide that disclosure, identifying all assets, liabilities, income, pensions and financial interests honestly and completely, and the obligation continues throughout the proceedings. It is not a box to be ticked once and forgotten. It is the mechanism that allows a judge to reach a fair outcome at all, since the court relies on the parties providing a truthful account of their finances, rather than conducting its own investigation into every asset. The whole system depends on the parties being truthful.

For most families, the better outcome is far simpler. Complete and honest disclosure from the outset allows negotiations to proceed on a proper footing, gives any eventual settlement real finality, and significantly reduces the risk of costly disputes years after the divorce has supposedly been brought to an end.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.