Post by ukipa on Dec 4, 2012 20:24:11 GMT 4
Two London property tycoon brothers are to sue the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for more than £200 million after it scrapped a high-profile investigation into their role in the banking crisis.
Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz were arrested by the SFO in dawn raids on their homes in March last year. However, the agency was forced to drop its botched case against Vincent in May and Robert in October.
Today’s claim for damages will be the biggest in the history of the SFO and, if awarded, will raise questions about its future.
The claim is double the figure the Mayfair-based brothers first suggested to Richard Alderman, the former head of the agency.
Alison McDonald, counsel for Robert Tchenguiz, told the High Court that her client had filed a claim for false imprisonment and was seeking damages.
Rosalind Phelps, for Vincent Tchenguiz, said a claim for trespass had been submitted, but further claims were being considered, including malicious prosecution, a claim under the Human Rights Act, and misfeasance in a public office, a charge for which the SFO has — according to accounts published last month — already made provisions.
The arrests were part of the SFO’s inquiry into the collapse of Kaupthing, the Icelandic bank at the centre of the country’s financial crisis.
Vincent alone is understood to be claiming £200 million, arguing that he had to sack about 60 staff and reduce the size of his business to concentrate on fighting the case.
He said: “I am pleased that the legal process of assessing the financial damage stemming from my very public arrest and the search of my home and offices has now commenced.
My reputation suffered serious damage during the 15 months between my arrest and the SFO conceding that they had no grounds for holding me as a suspect. Significant financial loss can be proved to have occurred as a result of the reckless actions of the former director of the SFO.”
The damages sought by Robert are unknown but are believed to be substantial. Last month, the SFO was told to pay the brothers’ legal costs — estimated at £3 million — for the successful challenge they mounted over the raids.
The case could also highlight the role of accountants Grant Thornton in supplying information that the SFO relied on. Grant Thornton would not comment. A judicial review this year found much of the material used by the SFO was misinformed or misused.
Today’s hearing starts a process that is likely to highlight SFO failures under Mr Alderman. Judge Mr Justice Eder asked for all papers to be filed by January 31, before a trial in October.
Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz were arrested by the SFO in dawn raids on their homes in March last year. However, the agency was forced to drop its botched case against Vincent in May and Robert in October.
Today’s claim for damages will be the biggest in the history of the SFO and, if awarded, will raise questions about its future.
The claim is double the figure the Mayfair-based brothers first suggested to Richard Alderman, the former head of the agency.
Alison McDonald, counsel for Robert Tchenguiz, told the High Court that her client had filed a claim for false imprisonment and was seeking damages.
Rosalind Phelps, for Vincent Tchenguiz, said a claim for trespass had been submitted, but further claims were being considered, including malicious prosecution, a claim under the Human Rights Act, and misfeasance in a public office, a charge for which the SFO has — according to accounts published last month — already made provisions.
The arrests were part of the SFO’s inquiry into the collapse of Kaupthing, the Icelandic bank at the centre of the country’s financial crisis.
Vincent alone is understood to be claiming £200 million, arguing that he had to sack about 60 staff and reduce the size of his business to concentrate on fighting the case.
He said: “I am pleased that the legal process of assessing the financial damage stemming from my very public arrest and the search of my home and offices has now commenced.
My reputation suffered serious damage during the 15 months between my arrest and the SFO conceding that they had no grounds for holding me as a suspect. Significant financial loss can be proved to have occurred as a result of the reckless actions of the former director of the SFO.”
The damages sought by Robert are unknown but are believed to be substantial. Last month, the SFO was told to pay the brothers’ legal costs — estimated at £3 million — for the successful challenge they mounted over the raids.
The case could also highlight the role of accountants Grant Thornton in supplying information that the SFO relied on. Grant Thornton would not comment. A judicial review this year found much of the material used by the SFO was misinformed or misused.
Today’s hearing starts a process that is likely to highlight SFO failures under Mr Alderman. Judge Mr Justice Eder asked for all papers to be filed by January 31, before a trial in October.
Attachments:
