July 17, 2026
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows) has refused permission to appeal in HM Comptroller (“HMC”) v Fidelity Management Limited (“FML”). The case concerns an important proceeds of crime forfeiture application brought under the recently updated Guernsey forfeiture regime.
HMC brought the application in relation to c.$14.4 million (the “Funds”) placed in a Guernsey bank account by a deceased personal injury lawyer from Chicago, Frank Laport. Mr Laport placed the Funds in the Account using a fraudulent alias, having previously incorporated FML under a different fraudulent alias.
At first instance, the Royal Court dismissed HMC’s application ([2025] GRC004), holding that: (i) as a matter of statutory construction, HMC had to identify the type of unlawful conduct which the Funds could be the proceeds of (including in order to satisfy the test of “double criminality”) before the burden could be placed on FML to prove that the Funds were not the proceeds of unlawful conduct; (ii) decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (the “ECtHR”) required that conclusion because they established that a forfeiture regime imposing a reversed burden of proof would be incompatible with Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights unless the State had first identified the type of unlawful conduct allegedly giving rise to the relevant property; and (iii) in any event, FML had met the burden of proving that the Funds were not the proceeds of unlawful conduct on the facts.
HMC appealed to the Guernsey Court of Appeal. By a decision dated 21 August 2025 ([2025] GCA065), the Court of Appeal (Mountfield, Matthews and Furness JJA) allowed HMC’s appeal on each ground and made a forfeiture order. The Court concluded that the Royal Court had erred as a matter of statutory construction, and was not obliged by the ECtHR jurisprudence to reach the same conclusion. The Court also took the unusual step of overturning the Lt Bailiff’s first instance factual finding that the Funds were not the proceeds of unlawful conduct on the basis that the Royal Court may have misunderstood the operation of the reversed burden of proof and further misunderstood the evidence available and the inferences which could appropriately be drawn from it.
FML appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which dismissed its application for permission to appeal by an Order dated 3 June 2026 on the basis that the appeal gave rise to no arguable point of law.
The case is particularly significant because of the guidance it gives for the operation of the Guernsey forfeiture regime and the operation of the recently introduced reversed burden of proof in Guernsey and more generally. The case also has implications for similar such regimes in England and Wales, including in relation to unexplained wealth orders, and the need for the State to identify the potential criminal conduct giving rise to property to be forfeited to meet test of “double criminality”. The decision of the Court of Appeal can be found here: Court of Appeal Judgment
Alexander Cook KC assisted HMC throughout the proceedings and acted before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Nicholas Wright assisted HMC before the Court of Appeal and acted before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
