[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Jemai v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 766 (16 June 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/766.html Cite as: [2015] EWCA Civ 766

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT
(MR JUSTICE EDER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		16 June 2015

1. LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER: This is an application by the 15th defendant in this substantial Commercial Court fraud action. The appellant, Ms Irena Jamai, seeks permission to appeal the orders of Eder J dated 14 March 2014, that is the main judgment, and his subsequent judgment dated 29 April 2014. By those judgments and orders, Ms Jemai was found to be liable for knowing receipt and dishonest assistance in the sum of US$20,740,000 and CHF 32,205. The basis of the judge's finding was that she was alleged to have dishonestly assisted in a subsequent money laundering exercise through a company called Vantax Limited, in respect of which she was also held liable of knowing receipt, although she personally received only approximately £6,000 from or through Vantax.
2. The application for permission to appeal was not dealt with on the papers because, in the light of the related applications by other defendants, Briggs LJ made an order adjourning Ms Jemai's application for permission to the same date as the renewed oral applications by the other two defendants. Because those have been adjourned for various reasons her application has only come before the court today.
3. I am satisfied that although usually this court will not entertain appeals based on challenges to careful findings of fact by a judge after a lengthy trial where the judge has had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and considering their evidence, this is a case where, for the reasons set out in Mr Hood's helpful skeleton argument and his oral submissions today, there is a real prospect of a successful argument that, in relation to this particular defendant, who on any basis played a much more limited role than the other defendants are alleged to have done, that the judge reached the wrong conclusions in relation to her involvement. Mr Hood has pointed to what are obvious errors in the judge's judgment in relation to Ms Jemai and as to his analysis of the evidence in so far as it affects her.
4. There is also a point of law which arises, even in the event that the judge's findings in relation to her liability as a dishonest assister are sustained; that is whether, in relation to the order for equitable compensation which the judge made against her, she should be given credit for the very substantial sums which the claimant/respondents have recovered from, it appears, funds that are traceable to the Vantax account, through which it was alleged that Ms Jemai was responsible for money laundering the proceeds of the fraud.
5. I am satisfied that, save in relation to ground 9, where Mr Hood seeks to rely on the terms of subsequent orders in relation to proceedings in the action, but to which she was not a respondent, and which do not directly purport to affect her, she should have permission to appeal. I would have given permission on the papers had the matter been referred to me on the papers.