Practice area
Civil fraud, asset recovery and tracing
Following money and assets across borders, and building the evidence to a standard that survives the application it is made for.
What these matters turn on#
Civil fraud claims are usually decided on documents that existed long before anyone read them together. In the Autonomy litigation, the liability trial ran for 93 days on deal files and emails dated 2009 to 2011, and the court assessed the buyer's loss in 2025, about 13 years after the writedown. In Nigeria v P&ID, an arbitration award that had grown to about $11bn with interest was set aside in 2023, after payments were traced across Nigeria, Ireland and the British Virgin Islands.
A worked example#
Tracing in practice: one transaction, then one attribution
The practice's worked example traces the 10,000 BTC pizza payment of 22 May 2010 to citation standard: the hash, block, timestamp and amounts, read on two independently operated explorers. It then reports on the address that drained the Ronin bridge in March 2022, with three layers kept apart: what the ledger shows; who is behind the address, cited to the US Treasury's sanctions designation of 14 April 2022; and the date on everything that can change.
Read the worked example→What the work is#
Tracing, across borders and across ledgers
Following value through corporate structures, correspondent banking and public blockchains, and recording each step so that a stranger can re-derive it from the same sources. Where the trail runs on-chain, the ledger facts are separated from the attributions built on top of them.
A worked trace→Evidence built for the application it will support
A freezing application, a disclosure application and a pleading each need a different thing from the same underlying material. The gathering is designed backwards from the order sought, including the duty of full and frank disclosure that attaches to a without-notice application.
Nigeria v P&ID, worked through→Structures, beneficial ownership and the people behind them
Registry work across multiple jurisdictions, reconciled into one entity-and-timeline picture rather than a bundle of national searches that do not agree with each other.
Beneficial ownership, worked through→Method that will withstand being examined
A freezing application made without notice carries a duty of full and frank disclosure, and the courts enforce it strictly. In Tugushev v Orlov (No 2) [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm), a worldwide freezing order was discharged for breach of that duty and not re-granted. In SFO v ENRC [2018] EWCA Civ 2006, the Court of Appeal upheld litigation privilege over the documents of an internal investigation. How the evidence was gathered is part of the case, not a footnote to it.
How evidence is handled→How a matter runs#
0. First conversation
Free. Whether the practice can help, and a check for conflicts of interest.
1. Scope
The question, the decision it serves, and the standard of proof that decision applies. In civil fraud, built backwards from the application the evidence will support. Agreed in writing, with the fee, before anything starts.
2. Set-up
One matter reference and one secure channel, before any material arrives. One matter, one channel→
3. Collection
Every item logged on arrival: where it came from, when, and whether it is complete. Each source is given a reliability tier.
4. Organisation and analysis
One working copy and one entity-and-timeline map. The question is tested against the evidence, and so are the other explanations.
5. Findings and return
A findings memo and a source pack, then the source material returned or deleted.
A full walk-through of a matter, with the points at which you decide, is sent on request.
What you receive#
- A findings memo, written to be read by someone who was not in the room
- An entity-and-timeline map reconciling every source relied on
- A source pack in which every assertion carries its provenance
- Where instructed, a report in the form the receiving body expects
A worked sample of all three, built from public sources, is sent on request.
Who this is for#
Matters like these usually come from:
- Litigation partners building or resisting an application
- In-house counsel and general counsel before a matter is externalised
- Insolvency practitioners and administrators pursuing recoveries
- Companies that have found a problem and need it scoped before deciding what to do
Cases this work draws on#
The practice's case-studies dossier works fifteen public matters and four clearly-labelled anonymised composites, read for what the evidence delivered and what it would have delivered if run earlier. The civil-fraud sections cover Autonomy, Wirecard, NMC Health, Steinhoff, Nigeria v P&ID, Stati v Kazakhstan, Glencore, 1MDB, Parmalat, Hin Leong, Mozambique v Privinvest and Cum-Ex.
Every figure in it was checked against the primary judgment or the regulator's own release, with a second independent check on anything flagged.
- →Civil & corporate fraud — in litigation
- →Civil fraud — resolved in arbitration
- →Concealment & subterfuge
- →Money laundering, bribery & tax fraud
Where to look yourself#
The official sources this work runs on. All free, all published by the body that made the record.
See also: Sports regulation & disputes — Where a finding of misstated accounts or concealment is made by a sport's own disciplinary body rather than a court.
Working on a fraud or recovery matter this touches?
The first conversation is free.
Start a conversationprobative.io is a research and investigations practice, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. This page describes the work the practice does and the sources it uses. It states no view on any particular matter, and nothing here should be read as advice on one.