National Crime Agency v Dong [2017] EWHC 3116 (Ch)

Facts

  • The case involved funds held in bank accounts in the name of Mr. Dong, alleged by the National Crime Agency (NCA) to be proceeds of crime.
  • The NCA obtained a property freezing order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), asserting the funds were recoverable property.
  • Mr. Dong argued that the funds were held on a resulting trust for a third party, claiming this excluded them from being classified as his under POCA.
  • The central question was whether the circumstances permitted the establishment of a resulting trust over the funds suspected of being involved in money laundering.

Issues

  1. Whether the funds in Mr. Dong’s bank accounts could be subject to a resulting trust in the context of suspected proceeds of crime under POCA.
  2. What evidential standards apply in establishing a resulting trust when money laundering is alleged.
  3. How the equitable principles of resulting trusts should be reconciled with the statutory framework and objectives of POCA.

Decision

  • The court held that the party asserting the existence of a resulting trust bears the burden of proving a lack of intention to make a gift.
  • Mr. Dong’s evidence in support of the alleged resulting trust, including any third party beneficial ownership, was found to be insufficient.
  • The court emphasized that arrangements claimed to be resulting trusts must be scrutinized especially carefully when there are money laundering allegations, as such structures can conceal true ownership.
  • The funds remained labeled as recoverable property under POCA, and the property freezing order was upheld.

Legal Principles

  • A resulting trust arises when property is transferred without intention to confer a beneficial interest; the transferor retains equitable title unless the contrary intention is demonstrated.
  • The presumption of a resulting trust may apply to bank funds unless there is clear evidence of a gift or other disposition of beneficial interest.
  • Under POCA, statutory objectives targeting recovery of criminal proceeds may override equitable arguments if the trust claim is not robustly evidenced.
  • The party claiming a resulting trust bears the evidential burden to show the requisite lack of intention to make a gift, especially where money laundering is alleged.

Conclusion

The court clarified that robust, credible evidence is required to establish a resulting trust over funds suspected as proceeds of crime, and that such claims are rigorously scrutinized in light of statutory anti-money laundering objectives under POCA. The judgment affirms the primacy of the statutory regime where trust arguments are not sufficiently substantiated.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal