Account Freezing Orders are being used with increasing frequency by investigating authorities.  Introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (which came into force in 2018), Account Freezing Orders are obtained at magistrates’ courts nationwide.  They are frequently sought without notice to either account holders or interested parties who only discover the existence of an order after it has been made.

The threshold for the court when considering an application for an Account Freezing Order (usually sought by a Financial Investigator) is a low one.  Applications for Account Freezing Orders are frequently granted upon the sworn evidence that funds held in a bank account (or series of accounts) are suspected to be ‘recoverable property ’, which means that the funds are either suspected to be the proceeds of crime or suspected to be intended for use in unlawful conduct.

On 8 April 2026, at Swansea Magistrates’ Court and without notice to the relevant account holders or any person associated with the funds, South Wales Police (through an accredited Financial Investigator) successfully applied ex parte to freeze a series of bank accounts which held a sum in excess of £250,000.  The signatories to the bank accounts only learnt about the application after the hearing, upon receipt of a Court Order notifying them that the respective accounts were frozen.

Benjamin Waidhofer was instructed by Huw Bowden, Director at Bowden Jones, to set aside – in entirety – the Account Freezing Order against three separate bank accounts.  The application centred on the contention that the AFO targeted funds derived from the sale of a property whose equity had already been considered during Crown Court confiscation proceedings.

The application to set aside the Account Freezing Orders advanced an unusual chronology, involving an historic criminal case of some complexity and confiscation proceedings pursuant to Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) which took place at Cardiff Crown Court.

During that confiscation litigation, the prosecution asserted - amongst other matters - that the equity in a property then valued at around £300,000 represented part of a defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct.  The Confiscation Order made at the conclusion of that litigation included a significant finding as to the value of the defendant’s ‘benefit from criminal conduct’ and his ‘available amount’.  Crucially, however, the Order made did not include the equity of the property as part of the defendant’s benefit.

The property was subsequently sold for £380,000 in order to satisfy the Confiscation Order, with the conveyancing exercise involving substantive correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service.  Following the sale of the property, a large sum was paid to HMCTS in order to satisfy the Confiscation Order.  The funds targeted by the Financial Investigator represented the remaining proceeds of the property’s sale.

In the course of detailed pleadings, it was argued that the magistrates’ court had been materially misled into making the original Account Freezing Order and that the Financial Investigator had wholly failed to discharge the duty of candour owed in without-notice proceedings.  The magistrates’ court was invited to set aside the Account Freezing Order on the basis that the Financial Investigator sought to re-litigate a matter which had been conclusively determined in the Crown Court, contrary to the doctrine of res judicata.

Given the particular circumstances in which the application for an Account Freezing Order was made, the costs of bringing the application to set aside the Account Freezing Order were sought against the relevant police force.

After initially receiving the application to set aside the Account Freezing Order, the Financial Investigator made it clear that the challenge would be vigorously contested.  However, very shortly before the final hearing, South Wales Police made it clear that it would not resist the application to set aside the Account Freezing Order if the application for costs was withdrawn.

The Account Freezing Order affecting three bank accounts was subsequently set aside – in entirety - by agreement.

Account Freezing Order (and Account Forfeiture Order) proceedings which are brought pursuant to Part 5 POCA 2002 can take years to resolve, and this case demonstrates why it is necessary for those affected by such Orders to take a proactive approach in litigation of this type.  Swift engagement can make all the difference, particularly in cases where the provenance of funds can be readily established.

Benjamin Waidhofer is frequently instructed to advise and represent both individuals and corporate clients in both criminal and civil asset forfeiture proceedings, as well as advising both individuals and corporate clients under criminal investigation.  He is ranked as a leading junior in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 for his work across a series of practice areas including work under the Proceeds of Crime Act and Asset Forfeiture.  He has successfully set aside and resisted numerous Account Freezing Orders against HMRC and the police.  He has been able to obtain costs orders against investigating authorities [https://www.foundrychambers.com/benjamin-waidhofer-successfully-discharges-account-freezing-order-obtained-ex-parte-by-hmrc-and-obtains-an-order-for-costs-against-hmrc/] and is highly sought after in this area of law.  Any queries about this matter, or any other, ought to be addressed to .