On 26th June, Greenberg Traurig published an article that explains what a Section 2 (or 2A) Notice is, why they are used, and provide some recommendations and tips for recipients. It explains that, broadly, Section 2/2A Notices are used by the SFO to compel the provision of information and documents (including digital material) from witnesses and potential suspects relating to its investigations. The name refers to section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which created the powers (and the SFO itself). It explains that a Section 2 Notice is used by the SFO in connection with an investigation which has been formally opened by the SFO; whilst a Section 2A Notice is used by the SFO to compel information and documents in order to assess whether or not the SFO should open a potential corruption investigation – and hence where a Section 2A Notice is used the SFO has not yet opened its formal investigation. The basis of any Section 2 Notice will be clear on the face of the Notice. They are used in place of a production order from the courts and protects the firm from charges of breaching any obligations to their clients in respect of confidentiality and data protection issues.
Taylor Wessing on 22nd June published a briefing that deals with the liability of the seller’s and purchaser’s solicitors in the event of a fraudulent property transaction in the UK. The case is also important because it may have an impact on how property transactions, and their registration, are conducted going forward. The case deals with 2 very similar frauds on residential property, and the facts in each case are described as “alarming”. In both cases, a fraudster pretended to own registered residential property in London. The fraudsters instructed solicitors, who thought they were acting for the real owners of the properties. The firm provides advice for purchasers and sellers in the light of the cases.
P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP and Dreamvar (UK) Ltd v Mishcon de Reya (A Firm)  EWCA Civ 1082
Isle of Man Today on 26th June reported that former Russian Senator Aleksandr Vitalyevich Sabadash was found guilty in 2015 of attempting to embezzle 1.8bn roubles of public funds through a fraudulent VAT refund scheme. In January, the High Court in the Isle of Man granted the Russian VTB Bank an injunction to freeze assets linked to Sabadash in the Island, including 2 Manx-registered corporate jets valued at €9.25 million. His challenge to the court’s order has been rejected. The 2 Gulfstream business jets were owned by Isle of Man companies which were in turn owned by a third company of which Sabadash was the sole shareholder.