Paul Marshall Article Appears in Journal of International Banking and Financial Law

This article considers the recent first instance judgment in Shah v HSBC [2012] EWHC 1283 (QB), in which Mr Shah at trial failed in each of the claims made by him against the bank, and questions: (i) whether the “workable balance” struck by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the “consent regime”’ is quite as obvious as the judge held it to be; (ii) whether the implied term identified by the judge might be unjustifiably broad in its scope; and (iii) whether it is obvious that the “consent regime” under POCA is effective in securing the objects of the policy to which it gives effect.