Civil Fraud Litigation in 2026: early action and evidential rigour take centre stage

Freezing Orders

In Canada Inc v Sovereign Finance Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 2170 (Comm), the High Court emphasised that the risk of dissipation must be demonstrated through “solid” and “forward‑looking” evidence. While refusal to provide asset disclosure can justify negative inferences, this alone is insufficient. The freezing order was continued only because a combination of factors, such as international financial structures, proven dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of a judgment debt, showed a real risk of dissipation.

By contrast, in Lakhany v Hasan [2026] EWHC 252 (KB), the court discharged a worldwide freezing order after identifying serious failures in the applicant’s full and frank disclosure. Misstatements about the respondent’s relocation, unexplained delays, incorrect claims about property control, and service failures meant the evidence did not support urgency or risk. The defective order itself compounded matters. The court described disclosure compliance as having “completely failed” and awarded indemnity costs.

Freezing orders are powerful but fragile. Courts require early action supported by precise, verified evidence. 

Norwich Pharmacal Orders ("NPO")

NPOs are playing a greater role where the identity of the fraudster is unclear. They compel third parties (often banks, email providers or tech platforms) to supply information enabling claimants to trace assets or identify wrongdoers.

Because NPOs are exceptional, applicants must show that:

• the respondent is more than a “mere witness”;
• the information is necessary and proportionate;
• full and frank disclosure has been given; and
• the order is tightly defined.

They are especially valuable before proceedings, unlike CPR 31.17 non‑party disclosure.

NPOs are now central in early fraud response strategies, but they require careful framing and sensitivity to third‑party confidentiality and reputational risk.

Bankers Trust Orders ("BTO")

BTOs remain a key tool for tracing misappropriated assets, especially in fast‑moving or crypto‑asset cases. However, courts are increasingly sensitive to issues of comity and foreign regulatory conflict. 

In LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc [2022] EWHC 2954 (Comm), the court held that making a BTO against a foreign party may infringe foreign sovereignty and should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. 

In Scenna & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 799 (Ch), BTOs against Australian banks were discharged because compliance risked breaching Australian law and there were alternative mechanisms available.

In Tonstate Group Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Edward Wojakovski & Ors [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch), the court granted a BTO against a foreign trustee due to strong UK connections and the need to enforce a judgment.

BTOs will not be granted where they force foreign parties to break domestic laws unless urgency and dissipation risks make disclosure genuinely unavoidable.

Strong and reliable evidence

Given the heightened scrutiny of interim relief applications, early evidence-gathering is now central to success in civil fraud cases. Courts consistently reward applicants who act quickly, verify facts rigorously and present a clear, coherent evidential narrative.

Basic due diligence is essential: Land Registry searches, company filings, bank relationship confirmation, tracing reports, and review of existing judgments.

Cases like Lakhany show that even a simple oversight (e.g., missing an LPA receiver appointment) can collapse an application.

Delay can fatally undermine claims of urgency or dissipation risk.

The Courts look closely at timing. A well‑structured chronology showing when concerns arose, what was known, and when steps were taken is crucial for establishing urgency and credibility.

In modern fraud, digital forensics such as metadata, IP logs, login histories, blockchain analysis are often determinative. Early engagement with forensic experts ensures that transient data is not lost. While it may be costly to frontload a case with such costs, it often becomes the determining factor on whether a case is likely going to be successful or not. 

According to Anna Schmitt, European Director at Larimar Corp, an international business intelligence and strategic advisory firm headquartered in Dubai, “retaining a corporate investigator early—once suspicion of fraud has arisen—can become one of the decisive factors in civil fraud litigation. In many cases, the real window of opportunity exists before legal proceedings are even issued, when investigators can help build the evidential case and inform strategies for recovering losses.

Fraudsters move quickly. Stolen or misappropriated assets can be concealed and layered through multiple jurisdictions, often in locations where courts have a poor track record of enforcing foreign judgments. If claimants wait until a litigation strategy is fully developed before beginning investigative work, critical evidence may already be lost.

Effective investigators will combine a range of investigative techniques, including computer forensics, transaction analysis and forensic audit, sophisticated open-source intelligence techniques, and intelligence obtained through discreet enquiries with sources who may have relevant insight into the underlying conduct. Investigators can also assist in identifying potential witnesses and gathering information through interviews.

What we increasingly observe is that the most successful cases are those in which legal teams work closely with corporate investigators from the outset and where investigators are brought in early. Early intelligence gathering and rigorous fact-checking allow legal practitioners to test assumptions, verify facts, and construct a coherent chronology before approaching the court. This preparation is particularly important when seeking urgent relief such as freezing orders or disclosure orders.”

Conclusion

The modern civil fraud landscape is defined by early intervention, evidential discipline and procedural integrity. Courts support claimants seeking urgent relief, but only when applications are precise, justified and candid. Whether seeking a freezing order, an NPO or a BTO, practitioners must move quickly and get the details right.

Reliable evidence is proactive evidence. Strong early investigation is not optional: it is a prerequisite for obtaining and sustaining urgent relief.