What measures are available to UK law enforcement in financial crime investigations?
Apr 21 2026
White Collar Crime
Home
News and Insights
What measures are available to UK law enforcement in financial crime investigations?
Financial crime poses one of the most complex and sustained challenges facing UK law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Partly due to advances in technology and increased globalisation, the breadth of conduct that falls within the scope of financial crime investigation, from large-scale fraud and money laundering to unexplained offshore wealth and cryptoasset-based criminality, has expanded dramatically in recent years. In response, the UK Parliament has developed a sophisticated legislative toolkit enabling authorities to investigate suspected financial crime, freeze assets at risk of dissipation and ultimately recover or forfeit the proceeds of criminal conduct.
The centrepiece of that toolkit is the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA 2002”), which has been substantially amended and extended by the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Criminal Finances Act 2017, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Those later statutes introduced some of the most powerful tools discussed in this article, including Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs), account freezing orders and the crypto wallet regime.
This article provides an overview of the principal investigative, freezing and recovery/forfeiture measures available to the UK authorities.
Part 1: Investigative measures
The first challenge in any financial crime investigation is gathering evidence and intelligence: establishing an understanding of what has happened, who is responsible and where relevant assets are located.
POCA 2002 Part 8 provides a range of powerful compulsive investigative powers, each requiring judicial authorisation.
These powers are available not only in criminal investigations, but also in civil recovery and money laundering investigations, and can be targeted at third parties, including financial institutions, who may potentially hold relevant material.
Production orders
A production order (section 345 POCA 2002) is the standard mechanism by which an investigating authority compels the production of specific documents held by a third party. On the application of an appropriate officer (including NCA officers, HMRC officers, SFO officers, constables and accredited financial investigators) a judge may order a person to produce specified material, typically within seven days. Production orders are frequently used at early stages in an investigation to obtain bank statements, property records and company filings from financial institutions. They can be made without notice to the subject (i.e. the subject is not made aware that the order is being applied for). In terms of responding to a production order, legal professional privilege applies, but financial records held by banks and accountants can generally be compelled. Non-compliance without reasonable excuse is an offence of contempt of court.
Disclosure orders
A disclosure order (section 357 POCA 2002) is broader: it authorises the investigating authority to require any person believed to hold “relevant information” to answer questions, provide information or produce documents. Unlike a production order, it can be addressed to multiple parties simultaneously and creates a general obligation to cooperate. It overrides statutory duties of confidentiality owed by financial institutions. Again, legal professional privilege applies, save that a lawyer may be required to disclose a client’s name and address.
Search and seizure warrants
Where it is necessary to physically enter premises and seize material, a search and seizure warrant may be obtained (section 352 POCA 2002) from the relevant Court. Warrants can compel computer access and data export and authorise the seizure of any material of substantial value to the investigation.
Account Monitoring Orders and Customer Information Orders
Two further tools target financial institutions specifically.
An Account Monitoring Order (section 370 POCA 2002) requires a financial institution to provide an ongoing stream of account information for up to 90 days, used where the authority wishes to track financial activity in real time.
A Customer Information Order (section 363 POCA 2002) requires financial institutions to disclose whether a specified person holds accounts with them and, if so, provide basic account details. Critically, Customer Information Orders can be directed at all financial institutions simultaneously, making them invaluable at the intelligence-gathering stage when the authority does not know which institutions the subject uses.
Gherson has recently explored both these measures in more detail:
Part 2: Freezing and preservation measures
Once assets at risk have been identified, the priority is preservation – preventing those assets from being dissipated, moved or spent before the investigation concludes. POCA 2002 contains several distinct freezing regimes.
Restraint orders
The restraint order is the classic pre-conviction freezing mechanism, available where a criminal investigation has commenced and the conditions for a confiscation order may ultimately be satisfied (section 41 POCA 2002). The Crown Court may prohibit any specified person from dealing with any realisable property held by them – applying to all realisable property and to property transferred after the order is made. Exclusions are available for reasonable living expenses, legal expenses (with limitations) and carrying on a business. Restraint orders are not punitive and must be proportionate. Ancillary orders, including travel bans, may also be made.
Account Freezing Orders
Account Freezing Orders (AFOs), introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (sections 303Z1-303Z15), are available without requiring a pre-existing criminal investigation. An enforcement officer may apply to a magistrates’ court where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that money in a bank account is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. This lower threshold makes AFOs one of the most actively used tools in the financial crime armoury. An AFO can remain in effect for up to two years. Permanent forfeiture follows either via an administrative notice route (30-day objection period) or by an order from a magistrates’ court.
Gherson has recently explored these measures in more detail:
What is an Account Freezing Order?
The rise and fall of the Serious Fraud Office’s Account Freezing Orders?
Crypto Wallet Freezing Orders
The Crypto Wallet Freezing Order (CWFO), introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, replicates the AFO regime for digital assets. An enforcement officer may apply to a magistrates’ court where there are reasonable grounds to suspect cryptoassets in a wallet administered by a UK-connected cryptoasset service provider are recoverable property or intended for unlawful use. Where cryptoassets are at risk of significant loss in value while frozen, they may be converted to money pending forfeiture – an important practical mechanism given cryptocurrency’s volatility.
We have discussed this in much more detail in the following articles:
What is a Crypto Wallet Freezing Order
Serious Fraud Office secured first Crypto Wallet Freezing Order
Crypto Wallet Freezing and Forfeiture Orders: what do the numbers say
Unexplained Wealth Orders and Interim Freezing Orders
Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs), introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (sections 362A-362T), target individuals holding high-value UK assets that cannot plausibly have been acquired from legitimate income, where the evidence is insufficient for criminal prosecution or a restraint order. The High Court may require the respondent to explain how they obtained specified property. Conditions include reasonable grounds for suspecting the property was not acquired from known lawful income, and either that the respondent is a politically exposed person or that there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in serious crime. The minimum property value is £50,000.
The consequences of non-compliance can be severe: the property is presumed to be recoverable in any subsequent civil recovery proceedings, effectively reversing the burden of proof. The court may simultaneously make an interim freezing order to prevent dissipation during the UWO process. Following 2022 amendments modifying the costs rules to reduce the risk of adverse costs orders, greater use of UWOs is anticipated.
Gherson has recently considered the Unexplained Wealth Order in more detail:
Part 3: Recovery and forfeiture measures
Where the investigation establishes that property represents proceeds of crime, the final stage is permanent recovery or forfeiture. POCA 2002 provides both criminal and civil routes.
Confiscation orders
The confiscation order is the primary criminal mechanism for stripping a convicted defendant of the financial benefit of their criminality (section 6 POCA 2002). The Crown Court carries out a two-stage exercise. First, it determines whether the defendant has a “criminal lifestyle” – broadly, conviction for specified lifestyle offences (including drugs trafficking, money laundering, people trafficking and serious fraud) or offences forming a course of criminal activity generating at least £5,000. Where a criminal lifestyle is established, various statutory assumptions apply: that property received, held or expenditure incurred by the defendant in the six years before proceedings were all funded from criminal conduct. These are displaced only where there is a serious risk of injustice. Their effect is dramatic: the court can assess benefit derived from all conduct during the relevant period, not merely the offence for which the defendant was convicted.
Second, the court determines the “recoverable amount” – the lower of the defendants assessed benefit and their available realisable assets. Within six years of conviction, the prosecution may apply to increase the order where new evidence of higher benefit emerges – which can be significant in complex international investigations where assets held overseas may take years to identify.
Civil recovery orders
The civil recovery order is the primary non-conviction-based route (section 266 POCA 2002). The High Court must make a recovery order where it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property in question is “recoverable property” – property obtained through unlawful conduct. No criminal conviction is required. Civil recovery is particularly valuable where a criminal conviction is not achievable – where witnesses are unavailable, the subject is overseas or evidence of specific criminality is insufficient. Prior to commencing proceedings, the authority may obtain an interim receiving order to freeze the property. Proceedings are frequently resolved by consent order, with the respondent forfeiting part or all of the property concerned.
Account and crypto forfeiture
Permanent forfeiture of AFO-frozen funds is achieved either through the administrative notice route (automatic forfeiture if no objection within 30 days) or by a magistrates’ court order. The crypto wallet forfeiture regime mirrors this, with the magistrates’ court able to order forfeiture where cryptoassets are recoverable property or intended for unlawful use.
See our related article for more details:
Crypto Wallet Freezing and Forfeiture Orders: what do the numbers say
Part 4: Overseas enquiries
Financial crime increasingly operates across borders. POCA 2002 contains specific mechanisms for requesting evidence from overseas in connection with civil recovery, frozen funds and cryptoasset investigations (section 375A POCA 2002). A judge may request assistance from a foreign court, government or competent authority. Alternatively, the relevant Director may make a direct request. Requests may be forwarded through the Secretary of State or, in urgent cases, through Interpol.
See our article at
Where realisable property is located overseas, the prosecuting authority can request the Secretary of State to seek cooperation from the foreign government to freeze or realise it. The UK may equally receive external requests from foreign authorities seeking to freeze or recover UK-based assets.
More broadly, the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provides the principal framework for mutual legal assistance (Mutual Legal Assistance) requests – covering witness statements, financial records, search and seizure and asset freezing. The UK is party to numerous MLA treaties including the UN Convention against Corruption and the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. Post-Brexit cooperation with EU Member States is governed by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2020.
Financial crime investigations with international dimensions increasingly intersect with the UK’s financial sanctions regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Sanctions and POCA civil recovery serve different purposes, but in practice there is a growing overlap – particularly for persons designated under the UK Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021 or the UK Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, who may simultaneously be the subject of NCA civil recovery investigations. Careful coordination between the NCA, HMRC, OFSI and the SFO or CPS is essential where both regimes operate in parallel.
Conclusion
The UK has one of the most sophisticated financial crime enforcement frameworks in the world. The measures available under POCA 2002 and associated legislation span the full lifecycle of a financial crime investigation: from early intelligence-gathering through to permanent recovery or forfeiture of criminal assets. Four themes run through the regime: the breadth and flexibility of investigative powers, the tiered and graduated nature of the freezing measures, the integration of criminal and civil recovery routes and Parliament’s responsiveness to new technological challenges, most recently through the crypto-wallet provisions.
For those who are the subject of financial crime investigations – or who advise them – understanding the specific mechanisms being deployed, the conditions that must be satisfied and the procedural rights available is essential. Receiving a production order, account monitoring order or customer information order does not necessarily mean a client is under suspicion of an offence, but it does indicate that they, their accounts or their property is of interest to an investigating authority. The receipt of a restraint order, AFO, CWFO or UWO requires immediate specialist legal engagement: the time limits for challenging such orders are strict and any delay can result in the loss of important rights.
Those in financial services, legal, real estate and professional services must also consider the POCA 2002 framework as a constant compliance consideration – balancing obligations to cooperate with investigative orders against duties to clients and obligations under the anti-money laundering regime.
NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES
What can I do to try and challenge a wrong decision to close my personal and/or business bank account(s)?
In the meantime, we are increasingly being approached by individuals who have been “de-banked” in circumstances when individuals feel that they have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other legal and applicable rules and regulations.
We have previously written about how other issues individuals may face, including account closures, are not limited to political figures in the UK, and affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year. These cases have exposed the difficult balance many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must navigate to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.
To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson’s Financial Crime, Investigations and Regulatory team have previously written the following blogs:
“Why has my bank account been closed?”
“Why has my business bank account been closed?”
“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”
“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”
“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking to not go far enough”.
“Am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?”
“How to challenge crypto-related bank account closures”
What can I do to try and challenge a wrongly imposed CIFAS marker?
We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that a financial institution has wrongly imposed a CIFAS marker in their name.
If you have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable legal rules and regulations, then you should have a good basis to challenge the bank’s decision to implement any CIFAS markers.
A strong challenge will often involve demonstrating through evidence that you have not breached the bank’s Terms and Conditions or any rules and regulations, and that all transactions were at all times done in full compliance will all applicable laws and regulations.
In a previous blog, we examined what a CIFAS marker is and how to try and get it removed and also what you can do if a CIFAS marker has been wrongly imposed.
We have also recently examined Challenging a crypto-related CIFAS Marker: what you can do.
Adverse information on compliance databases
We also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that incorrect and/or inaccurate data about them stored in compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions and who are facing subsequent issues, such as bank account closures and difficulties in opening a bank account.
We have written a series of blogs with a basic overview of the main functions of compliance databases like World-Check and how you can correct information about yourself on such databases.
HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST
Gherson’s Regulatory, White-Collar and Investigations team are highly experienced in providing assistance on what you can do if your bank freezes or closes your account. This includes assisting you in submitting a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information banks and other financial institutions may be holding on you and their decision making, and then analysing the response and assisting with any appropriate challenge.
If you would like to speak to us in respect of any of the issues raised in this blog or about your specific circumstances, do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, 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
View all news & Insights
