|
Asset freezing is a legal process which prevents a defendant (usually an apparent fraudster) to an action from dissipating their assets from beyond the jurisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process. The jurisdiction arises in part from the Judicature Act 1873, which provided that "A mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory Order of the Court in all cases in which it shall appear to the Court to be just or convenient..." Relying on this, Jessel MR in 1878 declared, "I have unlimited power to grant an injunction in any case where it would be right or just to do so..."〔, quoted in 〕 ==Origins in ''Mareva''== The legal order itself is in the form of an injunction, which in Commonwealth jurisdictions is also known as a freezing order, Mareva injunction, Mareva order or Mareva regime, after the case ''Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA'',〔, () 1 All ER 213〕 although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was ''Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis'',〔, () 3 All ER 282〕 decided one month before ''Mareva''. The ''Civil Procedure Rules 1998'' now define a Mareva injunction as a "freezing order". Asset freezing is not a security, nor a means to pressure a judgment debtor, nor is it a type of asset forfeiture since it does not confer upon anyone else a proprietary interest in the defendant's assets. However, some authorities have treated the Mareva injunction as an order to stop a judgment debtor from dissipating his assets so as to have the effect of frustrating judgment, rather than the more strenuous test of requiring an intent to abuse court procedure. An example of the former would be paying off a legitimate debt, whereas an example of the latter would be hiding the assets in overseas banks on receiving notice of the action. A freezing order will usually only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied. It is recognised as being quite harsh on defendants because the order is often granted at the pre-trial stage in ''ex parte'' hearings, based on affidavit evidence alone. A Mareva injunction is often combined with an Anton Piller order in these circumstances. This can be disastrous for a defendant as the cumulative effect of these orders can be to destroy the whole of a business' custom by freezing most of its assets and revealing important information to its competitors, and the two orders have been described by Lord Donaldson as being the law's "nuclear weapons."〔''Bank Mellat v Nikpour'', () FSR 87〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Asset freezing」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|