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.
Article taken from Journal of International Banking and Financial Law is reproduced by permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis’.