Mutual legal assistance, often referred to as MLA, has become one of the most disruptive tools available to prosecutors in cross border investigations. A single request from a foreign authority can result in UK bank accounts being frozen, trading funds locked, or property restrained before any charges are filed. For high net worth individuals (“HNWIs”), family offices, founders, and international businesses, the shock is often immediate. The legal pathway is complex, but the defence is primarily strategic. Success depends on understanding how MLA works, anticipating which UK orders may be used, and responding in a coordinated manner that protects liquidity, operations, and reputation.
This article explains the mechanics of MLA driven seizures, the legal instruments commonly used in the UK, and the essential actions to take in the first 72 hours. It also outlines the main grounds for challenge and provides guidance on how to coordinate the defence across multiple jurisdictions, including matters involving cryptoassets.
How MLA Requests Trigger Asset Freezes
MLA refers to formal cooperation between states in relation to evidence and enforcement in criminal matters. In the UK, these requests move through the UK Central Authority within the Home Office. They can ask the UK to obtain documents, carry out searches, or take measures that preserve assets so they can later satisfy a confiscation or recovery action.
Importantly, MLA does not operate in a vacuum. Intelligence sharing between law enforcement agencies, combined with the cautious approach of financial institutions, means that accounts can be frozen or restricted even before a court order is formally served. The speed at which prosecutors worldwide now coordinate can outpace the movement of capital or the actions of a defence team.
A critical point is that UK judges do not simply approve a foreign request by default. They examine the statutory basis, proportionality, and fairness before granting any order. Respondents have rights to challenge, vary, or discharge measures. This judicial oversight provides the backbone of an effective defence, but only if lawyers and clients understand the available tools and act quickly.
UK Legal Orders Most Commonly Encountered
Several different types of orders may be deployed in response to MLA requests. Each carries its own risks, standards of proof, and strategic levers.
Restraint Orders under POCA
A restraint order preserves assets that may later be subject to confiscation. It can be obtained before charge where there is an investigation and a risk of dissipation. These orders can reach worldwide assets, impose disclosure duties, and require surrender of passports. They are typically sought by the Crown Prosecution Service and are a frequent choice in MLA driven matters.
Account Freezing Orders (AFOs)
AFOs target specific accounts where funds are suspected to represent criminal property or are intended for unlawful use. They were introduced to allow fast action in financial investigations. Courts can grant exclusions for personal or business expenses, which makes early applications essential for operational continuity.
Property Freezing Orders (PFOs) in Civil Recovery
These orders arise in civil rather than criminal proceedings, and the UK authorities only need to show that property is probably the proceeds of unlawful conduct. They often include detailed disclosure schedules and can reach a broad class of assets. Because civil recovery does not require a conviction, the debate focuses heavily on evidence of provenance and commercial logic.
External Requests and Orders
The UK can recognise and enforce foreign restraint or confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and relevant Orders in Council. Technical defects in the foreign proceedings, or failures to meet statutory conditions, can provide valuable grounds for resistance.
The Crypto Dimension
Recent updates expanded the framework for MLA related cryptoasset recovery. Offshore wallets, exchange balances, and DeFi positions now receive focused scrutiny, and preservation measures can be implemented quickly. A defence for digital assets requires on chain tracing analysis, valuation evidence, and rapid engagement with exchanges.
The First 72 Hours: Operational Defence in Motion
When an order hits, speed is important, but structure matters more. The first three days shape both the legal strategy and the health of the wider enterprise.
Build a Control Room
Appoint a lead partner who will coordinate the litigation, regulatory, banking, and communications workstreams. Establish a communication protocol and a secure document repository. Decision makers should be identified and authorised in writing.
Obtain and Analyse the Papers
The sealed order, application, and supporting evidence must be reviewed immediately. Build a simple asset matrix that sets out what is frozen, where it is held, how it links to business operations, and what risks arise if the freeze persists.
Stabilise Liquidity
Assess payroll, debt service, margin calls, taxes, and other obligations. If key accounts are frozen, identify alternative funding routes. Prepare an application for exclusions supported by a cashflow analysis. Courts will not grant exclusions without strong evidence that the expenses are necessary and reasonable.
Gather Evidence
Develop a timeline and a document pack that will support your application or evidence. Focus on origin of funds, commercial rationale, bank statements, contracts, invoices, and internal decision records. Issue hold notices to preserve data and avoid accidental loss of evidence.
Keep Banks Informed
Banks may take steps to offboard accounts unless they understand that a controlled legal strategy is underway. Proactive communication reduces the risk of internal risk systems triggering unnecessary closures.
Prepare for the First Hearing
Decide whether you will challenge the order entirely or seek narrowed terms. Identify expert evidence needs. If proceedings are underway abroad, align strategy with local counsel to avoid inconsistent narratives.
Manage Reputation
Prepare short factual lines for staff, investors, counterparties, and the media. In a crisis, credibility buys time.
Contesting the Order: Key Grounds for Challenge
Challenges typically fall into several broad categories.
Procedural or Jurisdictional Issues
An order may be defective if service was improper, if key evidence was withheld in a without notice application, or if the overseas request does not satisfy statutory requirements such as dual criminality.
Substantive Merits
For AFOs and PFOs, the authorities must demonstrate reasonable suspicion. A strong defence highlights clean capital flows, commercial explanations, and proportionality concerns. Narrower measures may be more appropriate than a broad freeze that threatens business viability.
Human Rights and Abuse of Process
Excessive interference with property rights without charge, or evidence of political motivation in the foreign proceedings, can justify refusal to enforce an external order.
Third Party Rights
Co-owners, lenders, and commercial partners may have legitimate interests that require carve outs or directions from the court.
Disclosure Management
Seeking disclosure of the applicant’s evidence can expose weaknesses in the case. Confidentiality rings help balance fairness with sensitive intelligence.
Coordinating the Cross Border Defence
MLA cases rarely involve a single jurisdiction. To succeed, the defence must be synchronised internationally.
Maintain consistency between evidence filed in different countries. Understand how recognition works in each jurisdiction. Choose where to focus resources based on where liquidity is concentrated or where the merits are strongest. Manage what information is disclosed in each forum to avoid unwanted consequences elsewhere. For cryptoassets, engage with exchanges early and prepare a specialist evidence pack.
Conclusion
An MLA triggered asset freeze is not only a legal event. It is a financial and reputational crisis that requires a coordinated response. By understanding the order type, stabilising liquidity, building an evidence led challenge, and managing cross border risks, individuals and businesses can regain control and protect their position while the investigation unfolds.
