Year of Call: 1988
Email: sh@33cllaw.com

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 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/asset forfeiture/civil recovery: Stephen deals regularly with a broad range of issues relating to restraint, receivership and confiscation orders.  Eg he appeared in Jennings, a leading case on the meaning of ‘obtaining’ benefit, in the House of Lords.  His practice has an international element and includes helping overseas governments to obtain external restraint orders.  Eg he obtained a restraint order on behalf of the Government of India in a case connected with the Bofors munitions scandal.  Stephen is a consultant to the FIU of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Money laundering and criminal fraud: Stephen has prosecuted money laundering, fraud and financial regulatory offences.  Eg he was part of the prosecution team that secured convictions after a 2½ month trial in a multi-handed Ponzi fraud.  The media dubbed the case a ‘£3 million pray day’ as many of the victims were members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.  Stephen has been appointed to the SFO ‘A’ List of prosecuting counsel.  He was a member of the Law Society POCA Re-draft Taskforce.

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 and 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 has advised an investor on a claim in the Chancery Division alleging a multi-million pound cross-jurisdictional advanced fee fraud.

Pro Bono: Stephen has appeared as junior counsel on appeals to the Privy Council in Caribbean death row cases.  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.

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.

Stephen has recently been appointed General 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, which is due to be published in December 2009.

Notable Cases

• 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] 2 WLR 1148, 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.

• Peart v The Queen [2006] 1 WLR 970

This was a pro bono appeal to the Privy Council from Jamaica against conviction and sentence for capital murder.  The appellant’s conviction was quashed because the trial should have excluded admissions obtained as a result of questioning after charge in breach of Judges’ Rules.  Stephen was part of the Appellant’s team.

• 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:

• 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).