PREVIOUS ENGLISH ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

Qubo 1 and 2 – [2016] EWHC 3361 (Fam)

During the cross-examination of Farkhad’s “man of business” Anthony (Andy) Kerman on 15 December 2016, it was revealed that in November 2016 Farkhad had purported to transfer the Artwork and the Monetary Assets to a Liechtenstein entity called ‘Qubo 1 Establishment’. The Artwork was physically moved to a warehouse in Liechtenstein run by Stabiq Treasure House, and the Monetary Assets were transferred to LGT Bank.

Investigations by Tatiana’s advisers in Liechtenstein identified that there were two establishments, “Qubo 1 Establishment” and “Qubo 2 Establishment”.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave therefore found that each of Qubo 1 and Qubo 2 were no more than a cipher and set aside the transactions so that the assets vest in Farkhad:

“[i]t is quite apparent that this transfer was at an undervalue, or a nil value, and was simply the latest part of H’ s attempts to avoid his liabilities by purporting to transfer his assets to new entities in a new jurisdiction and thereby making enforcement more difficult”.

Source: judgment of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave dated 20 December 2016 at [1] to [6]

Source: judgment of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave dated 20 December 2016 at [5], judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 2 October 2019 at [14](c)

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave issued orders on 20 December 2016 that contained specific positive actions to be taken by Qubo 1, expressed by way of mandatory injunctions, in particular:

• that Qubo 1 and/or Qubo 2 transfer the legal and beneficial ownership of the Artwork to Tatiana, and deliver and/or Qubo 2 up the Artwork to Tatiana’s Liechtenstein attorneys. The order contained a penal notice to the effect that if Qubo 1 and/or Qubo 2 did not comply, it could be held in contempt of court and imprisoned or fined, or have assets seized (Source: the Financial Remedy Order of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave dated 20 December 2016) (Source: the Financial Remedy Order of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave dated 20 December 2016)
• a freezing order preventing Qubo 1 and/or Qubo 2 from disposing of the Artwork and the Monetary Assets held with LGT Bank

Worldwide Freezing Orders against Farkhad Akhmedov

On 20 December 2016, at the conclusion of the final hearing on Tatiana’s financial remedies application, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave granted a worldwide freezing order against all of Farkhad’s assets up to the value of £441,678,836 (being the outstanding Judgment Debt).

On 21 March 2018, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave granted a continuation of that worldwide freezing order. The recitals to the order note that:

At the time or making this order the Respondent has not complied with any of the financial orders for lump sum, property transfer and costs. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks the continuation of the original freezing order until further order or payment of security for the sum due.

On 10 August 2020, Mrs Justice Knowles ordered a variation and extension of the worldwide freezing order. In a judgment dated 18 August 2020, Mrs Justice Knowles stated:

3… The Wife’s application has been prompted by recent developments in the proceedings suggesting that the Husband and third parties have been exploiting perceived ambiguities in the Farkhad WFOs to continue to fund the Husband’s own lavish lifestyle and that of (at least) Temur. The Wife therefore sought a variation of the Farkhad WFOs to make clear that they extended to the totality of the Husband’s assets, this extension being necessary to further their purpose.
[…]

7. The Farkhad WFOs were intended to cover the totality of the Husband’s known assets at the time they were made, with the particularisation of assets running to more than two pages of the orders. This was supplemented by a specific paragraph which stated that “This order applies to assets (whether or not specifically listed) which are in the Respondent’s name and whether they are solely or jointly owned”. It was clear that all the Husband’s assets should be frozen to mitigate the real risk that the judgments and orders in favour of the Wife would otherwise go unsatisfied.
[…]

9. It appears that the Husband and third parties have been taking advantage of perceived ambiguities about the scope of the Farkhad WFOs, and have suggested that these extend only to specific assets in order either to validate payments received from the Husband which come from sources not caught by the terms of the Farkhad WFOs or to make it unclear where funds have come from, such that third parties can maintain they have not knowingly assisted in breach of those orders. The result is that the Husband and those concerned in his campaign of evasion continue to enjoy vast sums of money with apparent impunity.
[…]

17. In the light of the above, the Wife sought the variation and extension of the Farkhad WFOs to cover all of his assets, in furtherance of this court’s orders and judgments and in furtherance of the purpose for which the Farkhad WFOs were granted, that is, to mitigate the real risk that, without them, this court’s judgments and orders will go unsatisfied.

18. As the relief sought is the extension of existing freezing orders, the question I ought to ask myself is whether there is a real risk that the judgments and orders in the Wife’s favour will go unsatisfied if the relief is not granted. Given the matters outlined above I have no hesitation in concluding that this threshold is met in full. Haddon-Cave J concluded in 2016 and 2018 that the threshold was met to grant these orders, and, notwithstanding those orders, the risk the orders were meant to guard against very quickly became a reality. Mr Gourgey QC submitted that the only thing that had changed since then was that – as a result of his successful dissipation of assets, contrary to this court’s orders – the Husband’s complex web of illicit transactions had expanded beyond the perceived scope of the Farkhad WFOs with the result that he and third parties had felt able to ignore this court’s orders with impunity. I accept that submission.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 18 August 2020

Worldwide Freezing Order against Temur Akhmedov

On 17 July 2020, Mrs Justice Knowles granted an ex parte (without notice) application by Tatiana for a worldwide freezing order against the assets of Temur Akhmedov up to the value of US$120 million, and ancillary disclosure orders.

According to the terms of that order, Temur was required to tell the Wife’s legal representatives where the money was to come from to pay his legal representatives. It now appears that his legal fees were being paid by the Husband and that Temur intended to continue to receive such payments. It is not necessary for me to set out in detail the terms of the correspondence exchanged between the Wife’s solicitors and Temur’s solicitors about this issue. What is plain from that correspondence is that Temur’s legal representation in these proceedings was being wholly funded by the Husband.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 18 August 2020 at [16]

On 10 August 2020, Temur was, subject to satisfying certain conditions, granted a variation to the freezing order to allow him to borrow just over £2.2 million (plus costs associated with obtaining the loan) against his home in London, England.

Orders made against Straight dated 21 March 2018, in relation to the Luna

Pursuant to an order dated 21 March 2018, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave ordered the following:

• The transfer of the Luna into the Wife’s name pursuant to s. 24(1) of the MCA, s. 423(2) and s.425(1)(a) of the IA, such that the Wife held absolute beneficial title to the Yacht.
• That Farkhad and Straight were to effect all necessary steps and formalities for the proper vesting of the Luna in and the transfer of the title to the Wife.
• The Wife was declared to be the legal and beneficial owner of the Yacht with immediate effect.
• That Straight was the alter ego of the Husband, alternatively his privy, and through the Husband, it had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction.
• Straight was also declared to be the Husband’s nominee and the assets previously held in Straight’s name belonged beneficially to the Husband.
• Further, pursuant to s. 423 (2) and s. 425(1)(a), paragraph 10 of the March 2018 order provided that, if the Yacht was not transferred within seven days of the date of the order, Straight was to pay a cash sum to the Wife representing its capital value.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 18 August 2020 at [16]

Order made against Straight dated 26 March 2019, in relation to the Luna

On 26 March 2019, Mrs Justice Knowles granted relief intended to ensure that the Luna was not moved from Dubai.1 The order prevented Straight (or any representative or agent) from transferring or moving the Luna, and required that it be kept in its present location and preserved.

The parties have been able to agree a variation to the order granted on 26 March 2019. Mrs Justice Knowles approved a consent order on 1 May 2020 giving effect to that variation. As a result, Straight now accepts that it can comply with the March 2019 order.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 14 August 2020 at [19]

Orders made against Counselor and Sobaldo dated 15 August 2019

Pursuant to an order dated 15 August 2019, Counselor and Sobaldo were ordered to provide, to the best of their ability, information to the Wife’s solicitors within seven days of service of the order.

On 2 October 2019, at a hearing on notice to Counselor and Sobaldo, the court upheld the requirement for Counselor and Sobaldo to provide the information set out in paragraphs 20-22 of the August 2019 order and paragraph 19 of the October 2019 order so provided. Once more paragraph 26 of the October order provided the right to seek variation or discharge at any time.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 14 August 2020 at [110]

Forensic Examination Order against Temur Akhmedov

On 23 July 2020, Mrs Justice Knowles granted an application by Tatiana for an order requiring Temur Akhmedov to deliver up and provide access to his electronic devices and cloud storage accounts, and for these to be forensically examined by an independent IT expert.

Search Order against Temur Akhmedov

On 28 October 2020, Mrs Justice Knowles granted an ex parte (without notice) application by Tatiana for a search order against Temur Akhmedov. In making the order, Mrs Justice Knowles stated:

“… I am entirely satisfied that I should make the order sought. It is both proportionate and reasonable to do so to give effect to this court’s previous orders, and any less intrusive order, such as an imaging order, has already been tried by this court without success. I consider it is likely, if an imaging order were to be remade, that it would be ignored by Temur as he appears to have ignored my previous orders.”

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 28 October 2020 at [53]

The search order was served and successfully executed (at a property of Temur’s in London) on 29 October 2020. It resulted in the seizure of 58 electronic devices, 47 of which appeared to belong to Temur. Those devices appeared to have been actively concealed from Tatiana, the court and Temur’s former solicitors.  With reference to press reports about the matter, Mrs Justice Knowles stated that she was “entirely satisfied that the search order was properly and conscientiously executed.  I emphasise that Mr Assersohn, who represents Temur today, made no submission to the contrary”.

Source: judgment of Mrs Justice Knowles dated 4 November 2020 at [1], [3]