Unexplained Wealth Orders: recent developments and the interplay with insolvency

This article recaps the history of UWOs, their future and the interplay with insolvency following a recent case in which Fieldfisher was acting.

A brief history of UWOs

Dubbed 'McMafia orders', UWOs were introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017. UWOs require that their subject be a person reasonably suspected of involvement in, or of being connected to a person involved in, serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interest in particular property, and to explain how the property was obtained, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property. Where the respondent is or is connected to a non-EEA 'Politically Exposed Person' (PEP) no suspicion of serious criminality is required. If the subject cannot explain their interest in the relevant property, it can be seized. UWOs are often accompanied by an interim freezing order, which will freeze the subject's assets to prevent them being dissipated before the UWO process is complete. Crucially, the UWO process is administered under civil law, which has a lower threshold for standard of proof than criminal law.

The concept attracted significant attention at launch, seen as a powerful “reverse burden” device aimed at tackling illicit wealth held through opaque structures or by politically exposed persons (PEPs). Yet despite the initial fanfare, UWOs have been used only sparingly — and not without difficulty.

The early cases underscored both the potential and pitfalls of the regime. The National Crime Agency’s (NCA) first successful application in 2018 against Zahira Hajiyeva (wife of an Azeri ex-state banker jailed for corruption in Azerbaijan) was notable for the seizure of a trove of assets, including a home in Knightsbridge worth £15 million, a golf course in Berkshire worth £22 million, and a £1.1 million diamond ring. Whilst this case was high profile (particularly because of details of Mrs Hajiyeva's extraordinary shopping habits), and the value in question was very high, this was seen as a test case against low hanging fruit. Mrs Hajieva's husband, determined by the court to be a PEP, had already been convicted of corruption in Azerbaijan and the NCA argued that his salary as a state employee (a mere £54,000) meant that it was very unlikely that such a position would have generated sufficient income to fund the acquisition of the properties. This was followed by a handful of further orders, including against Leeds property developer Mansoor Mahmood Hussain, who ultimately agreed to surrender £10 million in assets.

But the NCA’s defeat in NCA v Baker & Others [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin) — in which the High Court discharged UWOs on the basis of flawed assumptions — had a chilling effect. The agency faced significant adverse costs, and the wider enforcement community grew hesitant. By 2021, the use of UWOs had effectively stalled, with critics describing them as “underused and overpriced”.

Reforming the regime

In response, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 sought to reinvigorate the regime. The reforms were designed to make UWOs more practical and less risky to pursue. Key changes included:

• Widened scope — allowing orders to be made not only against individuals but also responsible officers (e.g. directors, managers, partners) of legal entities such as companies or trusts.
• Broadened evidential basis — introduced other grounds for granting a UWO where “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property has been obtained through unlawful conduct.” This means it is no longer necessary to look at a person’s source of wealth or income to obtain a UWO.
• Extended time limits — previously, interim freezing orders in connection with UWOs would expire 60 days after the UWO response. This has been increased to 182 days to allow further investigation by the enforcement authority.
• Costs protection — reducing the risk of adverse costs orders against enforcement agencies acting reasonably.

These measures were intended to remove structural disincentives and make the tool more attractive for agencies such as the SFO, HMRC and FCA.

The SFO’s breakthrough case

The SFO’s recent success appears to be a direct product of that renewed framework. In January 2025, it obtained a UWO over a property owned by Claire Schools, the ex-wife of convicted fraudster Timothy Schools (jailed in 2022 for his role in the “Axiom Legal Financing Fund” fraud). The SFO suspected that the property had been acquired with proceeds of Schools’ criminal conduct.

Faced with the order, Ms Schools agreed to sell the property, generating £1.1 million which has now been recovered by the SFO for the benefit of victims. This represents the first successful implementation of a UWO by the SFO.

Although the sum is modest relative to the scale of many SFO investigations, the symbolic importance is considerable. It demonstrates that, with careful preparation and the protections introduced by the 2022 Act, UWOs can achieve tangible results without becoming mired in litigation.

Implications for enforcement and compliance

The SFO’s success is likely to encourage further applications — not only by the SFO itself but by other agencies now operating under the same reformed regime. It may also embolden the use of UWOs in domestic fraud and corporate crime contexts, beyond their initial focus on foreign PEPs and grand corruption.

The interplay with insolvency

Recently, we have seen instances of an UWO being obtained after creditors had already begun recovery actions against debtors (both personal and corporate entities) by way of the appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers and Administrations and the NCA have worked collaboratively with the appointment taker to allow enforcement action to continue (either by way of varying orders or simply by agreement), provided of course, that no recoveries from the assets were being released to the party subject to the UWO (or connected parties).

Given that administrators and liquidators are highly skilled individuals, subject to significant regulatory obligations and are also officers of the Court, it seems that the NCA and/or SFO are likely to allow those appointments to proceed unimpeded (subject to full disclosure of the proposed steps and any sales) and they are alive to the fact that office-holders can assist with recovery efforts to creditors as a whole.

Insolvency Practitioners have extensive investigatory powers (pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986) to assist in understanding the company's failure, the conduct of those concerned in its management and to realise assets for the benefit of creditors and there are various obligation on company directors and other parties to provide information that the office holder reasonably requires. Further, there are various claims which insolvency practitioners can bring (personally and in the name of the company) to overturn transactions and recover monies for the benefit of creditors, which may be more straightforward than certain criminal or civil remedies and can be concluded in a timely fashion.     

Looking ahead

The first SFO recovery under a UWO does not by itself transform the regime, but it changes the narrative. After years of sporadic and hesitant use, enforcement agencies now have a clear example of success under the post-2022 rules.

For corporates, high-net-worth individuals and professional advisers, this development underscores the need for continued scrutiny of asset provenance and ownership transparency, especially in structures involving trusts, nominee arrangements or offshore holdings.

If the SFO’s experience proves that UWOs can be deployed efficiently and proportionately, we may yet see the tool evolve from something only sporadically deployed into a meaningful component of the UK’s broader economic crime enforcement strategy.