Stephen Hellman

Year of Call: 1988

Stephen Hellman has the advantage of a background in commercial litigation, having practised offshore for almost 8 years in commercial law firms in Cayman and Guernsey.  He is a member of the Cayman Bar.  He often acts in an advisory capacity, eg advising trust companies and other offshore clients on money laundering and compliance issues.

His practice includes the civil, criminal and regulatory aspects of commercial wrongdoing.  He has particular expertise in confiscation/asset forfeiture and money laundering.

Confiscation: Stephen deals regularly with a broad range of issues relating to restraint, receivership and confiscation orders.  A highpoint was Jennings, a leading case on the meaning of “obtaining” benefit, in the House of Lords.

Money laundering and criminal fraud: Stephen has prosecuted money laundering, fraud and financial regulatory offences.  Eg he is presently instructed as sole prosecuting counsel in a case of fraudulent trading involving foreign exchange where the victims’ losses amount to some £14 million.  Stephen has been appointed to the SFO ‘A’ List of prosecuting counsel.  He was a member of the Law Society POCA Re-draft Taskforce.

Civil recovery/cash forfeiture: Stephen acted for SOCA on the trial of a claim to recover a property portfolio that was allegedly the proceeds of tobacco smuggling and/or handling.  He has also acted for SOCA in various high value cash forfeiture claims arising from the seizure of safe deposit boxes.

Regulation/compliance: While offshore, Stephen regularly advised banks and other financial institutions on production orders and suspicious transaction reports, and was money laundering reporting officer for a Guernsey trust company.  He is used to dealing with regulators, having acted for the SEC and represented clients in discussions with the Guernsey FSC.  Stephen continues to advise in these areas.  He has also appeared in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Civil fraud: Much of Stephen’s work offshore involved high value commercial litigation in cases such as BCCI.  He worked in collaboration with major international law firms in London and New York.  This has left him well equipped to deal with the increasingly important civil dimension to fraud and asset recovery.  For instance he advised one investor on a claim in the Chancery Division alleging a multi-million pound cross-jurisdictional advanced fee fraud.

International: Stephen has helped overseas governments to obtain and defend external restraint orders in cases involving allegations of corruption, tax evasion and money laundering running to millions of dollars.  He has also advised overseas based businesses and individuals and represented them in English proceedings.  Stephen is a consultant to the FIU of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Pro Bono: Stephen has acted for the appellant on death penalty cases in the Privy Council.  A notable success was Peart v The Queen, in which the appellant’s conviction was quashed.  He is a past chairman of the committee of Amicus, a charity that assists US defence attorneys working on death penalty cases, and a former editor of The Amicus Journal.  Stephen is a member of the Bar Complaints Committee and a participant in the Bar’s outreach scheme to state schools: “Speak up for others – a career as a barrister”.

Lectures/Publications: Stephen writes and lectures widely on issues related to his practice.  Eg he has lectured to the judiciary on recent developments in confiscation law at a Judicial Studies Board training day and prepared material for training Circuit Judges in restraint and receivership applications under a project funded by the Home Office.  He has chaired and/or presented in several of the innovative Webinars on corporate crime broadcast over the internet by the legal publishers Butterworths LexisNexis.

Stephen is Principal Editor of the leading textbook Mitchell Taylor & Talbot on Asset Confiscation and Forfeiture, personally editing the chapters on international co-operation, and is joint author of the chapter on Guernsey law in the third edition of the International Guide to Money Laundering Law and Practice.

Recent and Notable Cases

  • R v Freeman, 2010 – 2011, Cr Ct

The case involved a £14 million confidence fraud which the sentencing judge described as one of the most serious cases of its type with which he had had to deal in nearly 20 years on the Bench.  Stephen was prosecuting counsel.

  • R v Steed [2011] EWCA Crim 75

This was an appeal that concerned the application of the statutory assumptions in the case of a confiscation order that was made on a conviction for cheating the Revenue.  Stephen was part of the defence team.

  • R v Somoye [2010] EWCA Crim 2157

Stephen appeared for the prosecution in an appeal by the defence against a refusal to vary a restraint order to release funds to pay for the defence of civil proceedings founded on the same facts as the criminal prosecution.  The appeal was dismissed.  The case concerned the meaning of ‘relate to an offence’ in section 41(4) of POCA.

  • R v Seago [2010] EWCA Crim 1332

Stephen obtained the reduction of a confiscation order made against a company director as the court below had confused the benefit obtained by the defendant with the turnover of his company.

Notwithstanding that the appeal was successful, HM Courts Service has refused to refund a large part of the monies paid under the confiscation order as it had already paid them out to the beneficiaries of the compensation order.  Stephen has been instructed to seek permission for judicial review of HM Courts Services’ decision.

  • R v N, 2010, Cr Ct

Stephen acted for a trust company in Gibraltar that asserted a claim to assets that were covered by a restraint order.

  • R v Shahabuddin, 2010, Cr Ct

Stephen defended a postmaster in confiscation proceedings.  The prosecution initially sought a confiscation order of £491,000.  The court eventually made a confiscation order in the sum of £10,000, which was the figure for which the defence had contended all along.

  • SOCA v Bosworth [2010] EWHC 645 (QB)

Stephen acted for SOCA in the trial of a claim for a recovery order with respect to a portfolio of property held by a businessman in Cornwall.  SOCA claimed that the property represented the proceeds of tobacco smuggling.

  • R v C and others, 2010, Cr Ct

Stephen has obtained 12 restraint orders pursuant to an external request from Italy in connection with the prosecution of a multi-million Euro carousel fraud.

  • SOCA v Grewcock and others, 2009, Mag Ct

Stephen acted for SOCA on an application to forfeit £500,000 seized from cash deposit boxes that represented the proceeds of leasing fraud.  The cash was returned to the victims of the fraud.

  • SRA v H and others, 2009, SDT

Stephen achieved a satisfactory resolution for his client, a senior commercial solicitor, who faced allegations based on a series of alleged failures to comply with anti-money laundering due diligence requirements.

  • Re D, 2008 and 2009, Cr Ct

Stephen acted in restraint proceedings on an external request from a South American prosecuting authority.  The request was in connection with an investigation into allegations of tax evasion and money laundering running to millions of dollars.

  • R v Jennings [2008] 1 AC 1046, HL

The House of Lords ruled on the meaning of ‘obtaining a benefit’ in the context of confiscation law.  Stephen also appeared below in the Court of Appeal [2006] 1 WLR 182, when the court addressed additional issues connected with the restraint jurisdiction and non-disclosure, and at first instance in the High Court

  • R v Dalton and others, 2008, Cr Ct

Stephen was part of the prosecution team that secured pleas of guilty to benefit fraud, money laundering and perverting the course of justice.  The case concerned a couple who systematically laundered at least £200,000 over an 8 year period using a network of properties, bank accounts, premium bonds, and nominees.  The monies represented the proceeds of benefit fraud and other crimes.

  • R v Mangena and others, 2007 and 2008, Cr Ct

Stephen was part of the prosecution team that secured convictions for fraudulent trading, money laundering, and regulatory offences under the FSMA.  This was a multi handed trial, arising out of an alleged £3.2 million Ponzi fraud, which received widespread coverage in the local and national press.  The convictions followed a retrial that lasted for two and a half months. Stephen also appeared in the original trial in 2007 and advised on the appropriate charges.

  • Re Greenacre [2008] 1 WLR 448, DC

The High Court held that the magistrates’ court does not have power to allow a defendant further time to pay a confiscation order made by the Crown Court under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and that it consequently has no power to vary the date on which interest on the confiscation order begins to accrue.

  • Re J [2006] EWHC 3382 (Admin)

Stephen acted for a Hong Kong company asserting ownership of a stately home that was covered by a restraint order as it was allegedly the property of a convicted MTIC fraudster.

  • R v Bates [2006] EWCA Crim 1015

The Court of Appeal held that the discretion of the Crown Court under section 16 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 to increase the amount of a confiscation order is unconfined.

  • Thakrar v IT Forex (UK) Limited (2006) QB

The applicant obtained a freezing injunction in aid of the execution of a judgment in favour of another party to the proceedings.  This is thought to be the first occasion on which the court has adopted this innovative approach.

  • Jordan v Borders UK Ltd and others, The Times, 15 April 2005, CA

The Court of Appeal considered the relationship of exemplary damages to remedies for unjust enrichment and criminal confiscation proceedings.

  • Re Adams, The Times, 6 December 2004, QB

The High Court held that neither the consultancy contract before the court nor entitlement to payment under the contract were realisable property.  The case centred on the distinction between present and future choses in action.

  • Re O’Donoghue [2004] EWCA 1800

The Court of Appeal held that, on an application for a certificate of inadequacy, a defendant would generally be required to show what had happened to all of his property since the making of the confiscation order, even where some of his property comprised hidden assets.

  • Government of India v Quattrocchi, The Times, 28 January 2004, CA

The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which a court could make a restraint order on the request of a foreign government.  Stephen was part of the prosecution team.

  • Re G, mediation, 2000

Stephen was part of the team that acted for the plaintiff in a successful mediation under the auspices of CEDR of a claim for professional negligence in the Royal Court of Guernsey against the firms of advocates and accountants that had represented the plaintiff in connection with the obtaining of business loans to acquire a parcel of land.

  • In re Canton of Berne’s Request 1996 CILR 179, Grand Court

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands dismissed an application by the Canton of Berne for production for use to prosecute the respondents of documents seized by the Cayman police.  As the documents had been seized unlawfully, the respondents’ privilege against self incrimination prevailed.

  • In re BCCI International (Overseas) Ltd, January 1995, Grand Court, unreported

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands approved a pooling agreement whereby the assets recovered in the liquidation of the BCCI group, which included some Cayman companies, would be distributed rateably among the creditors of the group.  Stephen was part of the team representing one of the Cayman companies.

  • R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482, HL

The House of Lords held that the excessive use of force in self-defence could not convert murder to manslaughter.  Stephen was part of the Appellant’s team.

Advisory work

Stephen has advised, among others:

  • A Guernsey investment company as to its obligations under an external restraint order in Guernsey (2010).
  • An offshore law firm as to the anti-money laundering obligations of its London office (2009).
  • The claimant in a High Court action for deceit as to how any future confiscation proceedings would affect its prospects of enforcing judgment against the defendant (2008).
  • An investor who had brought a claim in the Chancery Division alleging that he had been defrauded in a multi-million pound cross-jurisdictional advanced fee fraud (2008).
  • In separate matters, the advocates for several Guernsey trust companies as to their clients’ reporting obligations with respect to politically exposed persons (2008).
  • The Bar Council on the merits of an application for judicial review of the statutory arrangements for funding defence counsel in confiscation hearings under POCA (2008).
  • A professional client in connection with a police investigation in Bermuda into a multi-jurisdictional money laundering operation (2007 – 2008).
  • The UK holding company of an asset management group as to the extent, if any, that its money laundering reporting obligations under English law could be triggered by the activity of its Swiss subsidiary (2006 – 2007).
  • A Guernsey trust company on the anti-money laundering and due diligence requirements arising on the proposed sale of an English company that was the majority shareholder in a South African gold mine (2006).