Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective

Abstract

Considers the ability of an applicant to reach assets in offshore jurisdictions, showing that there is a difference between the offshore world and the rest of the world; most of the “traditional” offshore states are covered by Privy Council precedent and authority and are out of step with legislative changes in England, and obviously it is in the interest of these locations to attract only legitimate commercial funds. Discusses what can be done to prevent defendants from using offshore jurisdictions from melting away assets: freezing orders in aid of foreign proceedings, extra‐territorial freezing orders, and territorial enforcement orders. Cites some relevant legal cases in England, Australia, Canada, and the offshore world, which includes the Bahamas, the Channel Islands, Bermuda, etc; these cases include the Mareva injunction, the Siskina judgment, Mercedes‐Benz AG v Leiduck etc.

Citation

Aslett, P. (2003), "Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 229-245. https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790310808817