The NCA’s growing appetite for civil recovery: what the ENEX case tells us

The forfeiture of US$5.2 million from ENEX Premium Trading Limited marks a watershed moment in the NCA’s use of civil recovery powers — and a warning to anyone with complex international assets.

When the National Crime Agency (NCA) announced on 27 August 2026 that it had secured the forfeiture of more than US$5.2 million from ENEX Premium Trading Limited, it was more than just another press release – it was a statement of intent.

The ENEX case is one of the most striking recent examples of the NCA deploying its civil recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA 2002”), but it is not an isolated event. It sits within a far broader — and rapidly accelerating — trend of UK enforcement authorities using civil proceedings to seize assets linked to unlawful conduct, without ever needing to secure a criminal conviction.

For anyone holding significant or internationally connected wealth, this matters. Here is why.

Civil recovery: the power to take without convicting

Civil recovery is, in essence, the process by which an enforcement authority can ask a court to forfeit property it believes was obtained through unlawful conduct — that is, behaviour that is deemed unlawful (rather than specifically illegal). What makes it distinctive is that no criminal conviction is required. The proceedings are civil, not criminal, and the court decides on the balance of probabilities whether it is more likely than not that the property was gained directly or indirectly through unlawful conduct.

That is a significantly lower threshold than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. And as the ENEX case demonstrates, the NCA is using it with growing confidence and sophistication.

Under section 241 of POCA 2002, “unlawful conduct” covers conduct that is unlawful under the criminal law of any part of the United Kingdom, or conduct occurring abroad that would be unlawful both locally and if it had occurred in the UK. The reach is deliberately wide.

The ENEX case: a US$5.2 million wake-up call

The facts of the ENEX investigation read like a masterclass in international asset tracing. According to the NCA, between July and September 2024, substantial funds were transferred into UK bank accounts. In November 2024, the NCA obtained an Account Freezing Order (“AFO”) — a court order preventing the money from being moved or withdrawn.

But the investigation did not stop at the UK border.

Investigators traced funds beyond those UK accounts to ENEX accounts in China, which had received significant payments from companies suspected of being front companies. The investigation also uncovered transactions involving UK electronic money institutions and cryptocurrency.

The picture grew more complex still: companies that had made payments into ENEX’s Chinese accounts were subsequently designated by the United States in connection with alleged Iranian oil trading and the provision of revenue to Iran’s QODS Force.

A settlement was ultimately reached with ENEX’s owner, Nadir Valiyev.  Notably, the NCA state: “The settlement agreement does not amount to an admission of unlawful conduct on the part of either ENEX or Valiyev, and does not amount to evidence of criminal conduct.”

Yet it received $5.2 million.

The numbers tell the story

ENEX is not an outlier– recent government statistics[1] confirm that the use of civil recovery tools is surging across every measure. For the financial year ending March 2026:

• £451.5 million was under investigation via Unexplained Wealth Orders (“UWOs”) — court orders requiring relevant individuals to explain the source of their wealth. In the previous year, the figure was just £1.8 million;
• £431.7 million in assets was frozen through Interim Freezing Orders (“IFOs”) — temporary court orders that freeze assets during investigations. The previous year’s figure was zero;
• £182.7 million was frozen through Property Freezing Orders (“PFOs”) — orders preventing property from being sold, transferred, or dealt with. This figure is up from £52.2 million; and
• £38.5 million was recovered under civil recovery orders — the final orders that transfer unlawful property to a government-appointed trustee. That is over five times the £7.5 million recovered the previous year, and more than triple the six-year median of £11.2 million.

The direction of travel is unmistakable. Civil recovery is no longer a niche tool – it is becoming a primary enforcement strategy.

The recent case involving the Premier League illustrates the breadth of this approach. In September 2026, Westminster Magistrates’ Court extended for a further four months an Account Freezing Order over more than £10 million held in a Premier League account. The order relates to an NCA investigation into Sorare – the French digital fantasy football company that previously partnered with the Premier League. It is alleged that Soarer should have obtained a gambling licence and, therefore, in the absence of such a licence any funds paid to the premier league represented property derived from unlawful conduct. The Premier League itself is not accused of wrongdoing; nevertheless, the case demonstrates how funds held by an entirely separate and apparently legitimate commercial entity can become subject to an AFO where investigators consider them potentially connected to suspected criminal conduct.

Following the money — further than ever before

A significant lesson from the ENEX case is the sheer reach of the NCA’s investigation. This was not a case of freezing UK accounts and stopping there: investigators followed the money across borders, through corporate structures, electronic money institutions, and into cryptocurrency.

This should give pause to anyone who assumes that an explanation along the lines of “the funds came from my own company” or “it was a legitimate investment” will be sufficient to end an enquiry – it may not. Investigators will want to understand:

• How the funds were originally generated;
• Which entities and individuals were involved in each transaction;
• The commercial purpose behind the movement of money; and
• The route the funds took before arriving in the account under investigation.

This creates particular difficulties for individuals and businesses whose wealth or commercial interests have developed over many years, across multiple jurisdictions, and through various corporate structures. Transactions that appeared perfectly routine at the time may become the subject of intense scrutiny years later.

Contracts, invoices, banking records, corporate documents, and correspondence may all become relevant — potentially many years after the fact. If those records are incomplete or difficult to locate, explaining a complex financial history becomes significantly harder.

How the legal machinery works

Under POCA 2002, an Account Freezing Order can be obtained where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the funds are “recoverable property” — that is, property obtained directly or indirectly through unlawful conduct — or that the funds are intended for use in unlawful conduct.

Crucially, no criminal charge or conviction is needed. Funds can be frozen, and ultimately forfeited, entirely through civil proceedings.

The practical consequences can be severe. An AFO may restrict access to funds needed for business operations, contractual commitments, payroll, or personal living expenses. A civil recovery order — the final step — vests the property in a trustee for civil recovery, permanently transferring it away from the owner.

POCA does provide mechanisms for seeking exclusions from a freezing order and for challenging or varying orders, but these mechanisms require prompt, specialist legal advice. Delay can be costly.

What this means in practice

For individuals and businesses with significant or internationally connected assets, the message from the ENEX case and the broader statistics is clear: it is no longer enough simply to hold assets legally. You need to be able to demonstrate the origin, purpose, and movement of your funds.

Where an Account Freezing Order or Property Freezing Order is obtained, the immediate priorities are:

• Understanding the basis of the suspicion. What does the enforcement authority believe, and on what evidence?
• Assembling the evidential trail. Can you document the legitimate source and movement of the funds?
• Identifying third-party interests. Do other parties have a claim to the frozen property?
• Challenging or varying the order. Is there a basis to contest the order, or to seek exclusions for essential expenditure?

We are seeing a sharp uptick in the use of civil recovery powers across UK enforcement agencies — from unexplained wealth orders to account freezing orders to civil forfeiture. While these are civil proceedings, the consequences can be severe.

The wider enforcement landscape is also expanding. On 15 September 2026, the Government announced that 500 new officers will be recruited across police forces, the NCA and the CPS as part of a £500 million, three-year investment in its new Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Strategy. The additional investigators will focus on tracing and recovering criminal assets and disrupting serious and organised crime, including international money-laundering networks. The announcement reinforces the broader direction of travel: financial investigations and asset recovery are becoming an increasingly significant part of the UK’s response to economic and organised crime.

How we can help

Our team has deep experience in civil recovery and asset forfeiture proceedings, acting for individuals and corporates facing enforcement action by the NCA and other agencies. We advise at every stage, from responding to an initial freezing order through to settlement or contested proceedings.

If you are subject to, or concerned about, civil recovery proceedings, or if you simply want to understand your exposure, we would welcome the opportunity to speak with you. Early advice can make a material difference to the outcome.

Contact us at info@gherson.com or call +44 20 7724 4488 to arrange a confidential discussion.

Follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026

[1]Source: Proceeds of Crime Recovered — Asset Recovery Statistics, Financial Years Ending 2021 to 2026, published 15 September 2026.