Home
About Us
Join Libertas
Contact Us
+44 (0) 20 7036 0200
Shortlist
0
Expertise
Members
Clerks
Media
Menu
Home
Our Expertise
Business Crime
Criminal Defence
Regulatory Law
Civil Litigation
Public Law & Human Rights
Private Prosecutions
International Criminal Law
Our People
Members
Clerks
About Us
Direct Public Access
Equality, Diversity & Corporate Social Responsibility
Instructing Us & Terms of Business
Pro Bono
Privacy Policy & GDPR
Media Hub
Join Libertas
Contact Us
+44 (0) 20 7036 0200
Cookie Policy
Home
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Read Our Latest Cookie Policy
CONNECT WITH US
FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES
X
LinkedIn
Libertas Lens
Latest News
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation
I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation. The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss. Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge. The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility. This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA). The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith. Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser. In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession. The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind. Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint. The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong. In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin. The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive. In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated. The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows. In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith. Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity. The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets. For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential. Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives. In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Dr Felicity Gerry KC leads in High-Profile Terrorism Trial allegation
Dr Felicity Gerry KC is leading for the defence in the ongoing trial at Preston Crown Court concerning an alleged extremist plot and involving an undercover operative. This trial began on Tuesday this week and is listed in Preston for 3 months Felicity is leading Irfan Arif of 9 Lincoln’s Court and is instructed by Central Law Chambers You can read more about the trial here https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/terror-trial-jewish-plot-court-32633594
Libertas Chambers
Darren Snow Secures Not Guity Verdict in Sexual Communication with a Child Case
In yet another fantastic result, Darren Snow, instructed by I A Law, secured a not guilty verdict for his client at Birmingham Crown Court. Darren was instructed only days before the trial to defend this case of alleged sexual communication with a 13-year-old girl. The case was part of an undercover operation by West Midlands Police where specialist police officers had infiltrated the online free chat forum ChatIB, playing the part of underage girls engaging in sexual chat. The contact and its sexual nature were not disputed. The officer had identified himself as a 13-year-old girl. Darren’s client had maintained from his police interview to trial that he believed that he was engaging in fantasy chat with an adult – something he had often done on the forum. In cross examination Darren took the officer overseeing the investigation through the ChatIB system – demonstrating that it made clear it was a site for over 18s and anyone using it had to agree a declaration that they were over 18 before being able to access the site and chat with other users. The officer also accepted that the choice of name on the site by Darren’s client had made it blindingly obvious he was on the site to talk about sex. The jury were unanimous with their verdict. Darren Snow has a growing reputation for his work defending in complex sexual offence cases as leading and junior counsel, including in prosecutions led by KCs.
Libertas Chambers
Latest Insights
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Writes for Counsel Magazine on Autism
Dr Felicity Gerry KC, a leading expert in criminal law, explores the complex intersection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the UK criminal justice system in her latest piece for Counsel Magazine. Drawing on her extensive experience, Dr Felicity Gerry KC examines how systemic gaps in understanding and support can have profound consequences for neurodiverse individuals, particularly in cases involving joint enterprise convictions. Her article sheds light on the urgent need for reforms and greater awareness to ensure justice is equitable for all. Article Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC It is not known how many people are in prison for murder when they did not kill anyone but were convicted as secondary parties via the discredited label ‘joint enterprise’. It is not known how many of these people were convicted under the law on ‘joint enterprise’ that in 2016 was held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is not known how many of these people in prison live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is currently no national UK audit of prisons to establish this information. It is known that ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Research states: ‘if social conventions and connectedness are opaque to [people with ASD], how can they authentically appreciate that a person’s actions are morally wrong?’ The Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK criminal justice system (CJS). This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Joint Enterprise National Monitoring Scheme 2024/25 data released in September 2025 focused on mental health, to include neurodiverse conditions. It states ‘the quality of data flowing about whether or not a defendant has a disability is poor’ and more likely to ‘be identified during a case’ and while it ‘would be kept under review throughout the life of a case’, any updated information may not be available for the purposes of the monitoring scheme. These are significant holes through which ASD people will fall. Continue reading the full article here:https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/autism-joint-enterprise
Libertas Chambers
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation
I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation. The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss. Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge. The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility. This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA). The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith. Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser. In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession. The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind. Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint. The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong. In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin. The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive. In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated. The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows. In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith. Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity. The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets. For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential. Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives. In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Sinéad O’Connor and the Weaponization of Hunger: What if she Sang for Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan?
If Sinéad O’Connor were around today, watching the children of Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan starve, her outrage would be incandescent. Thirty-one years ago, she revealed the true nature of the Irish ‘famine’ and its ‘painful feelings’, in her unique and fearless voice. An Gorta Mór was a woeful period marked by invasion and conflict – a purposeful program starvation, politically recast as the sole result of crop failure. There is no doubt Sinéad’s howl of outrage would link the bitter legacy of Britain’s starvation of Ireland to the deliberate deprivation being perpetrated in parts of the MENA region. She would rightly be calling it a crime. Across the MENA region, like Sinéad, musicians have framed the language of resistance. Palestinian group DAM have spoken about their guilt and mourning as activist artists watching the devastation at home. Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi, her voice soaring at the Arab Spring, asserted, “I am free and my word is free/ Don’t forget the price of bread … I am the voice of those who do not die,” lyrics that resonate as both witness and indictment. Egyptian band Cairokee, Syrian singer Samih Shqeir, and Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife all fuse grief and protest, arguably turning every refrain into evidence. Through their music, collective memory is sharpened into accusation, particularly on the theme of starvation. But, when and how can such an accusation become a criminal case? According to the World Food Programme (WFP), conflict is the primary reason people are living in acute hunger. The WFP explain that hunger drives people away from their land and livelihoods, disrupts markets, increases food prices and destroys critical developmental gains. Palestine, Yemen and Syria are described as “hunger hotspots” where people are suffering devastating impacts. Research has shown that across all causes and factors, conflict is the dominant feature in famine across time, but it was not until more recently that it became a crime. The Lieber Code (1863) specifically allowed the ‘extreme measure’ of driving the fleeing civilians back into a starving city under siege ‘so as to hasten on the surrender’. The first instance where ‘deliberate starvation of civilians’ was identified as a war crime was after WWI by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Although ultimately never implemented, the list of crimes, including starvation, remains one of the earliest attempts at itemising specific war crimes. Ask about starvation and the siege of Leningrad in WWII is often recalled where there was mass death from hunger, but the siege itself was not unlawful. Starvation remained a military and political tactic, framed as legitimate globally and regionally, well into the twentieth century. Even after the horrors of two world wars, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not specifically prohibit starvation. It was the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that explicitly prohibited starvation as a method of warfare. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, concerned the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It prohibits various acts which deny civilians sustenance. Eleven years later, starvation was added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime. Six years ago the same laws were amended to apply to non-international armed conflicts – applicable to regions, including MENA. It is often said that in World War II more people died of starvation and disease than in active combat but Daphne Yuqing Liu, an expert on the law on starvation, describes this as too sweeping a declaration. She explains the modern approach as follows: “First, there is a fine difference between the tactical use of starvation and starvation due to an instability. Second, the war crime of starvation as we discuss it today is more than food. ‘Hunger’ for water and medicine also count. The test is whether the item is indispensable to civilian life” This modern test of what is indispensable is important to account for activities in conflict such as destruction/rendering useless by poisoning or polluting water supplies. In MENA, violent attacks on aid workers (and their convoys) and healthcare providers (and their facilities) may be evidence of a starvation tactic. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which controls food distribution has been described as “an experiment in food control and counterinsurgency for the digital era”. In Syria 5.4 million are at risk of hunger. Famine in Yemen is so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. In relation to Gaza, UN experts have said : “Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services is not a matter of charity – it is a legal duty” So it is that international law now reflects Sinéad’s moral values: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can, with the necessary evidence, lead to accusation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence, although the laws do not apply to combatants, which can make understanding a situation opaque. It is a law which needs to be tested and therefore should not sit idly on the Rome Statute books but needs to be enforced to see if it functions. If it is used, there may be an impact in terms of deterrence or crime prevention, however aspirational that may sound. We do not have to wait for the much-beleaguered International Criminal Court (which by the way only has three courts), because in many cases, international laws can be enforced in those states which can apply what is known as ‘universal jurisdiction’. This means that many states have the ability to put anyone on trial for international crimes, wherever they are committed. The Global Investigative Journalist Network has reported that in 2025, over 300 million people face acute hunger and that Sudan and South Sudan, Gaza, and Haiti are facing the worst crises. Which of these are conflict related, time and evidence will tell. In addition to the importance of what has become known as ‘activist lawyering’ for moral imperatives , the international legal prohibition on starvation is also a crucial tool for advocacy, evidence-gathering, and the demand for accountability. The recognition of starvation as a war crime (national or regional) transforms it from a military objective to a violation of international norms. It follows that the fundamental right to food is not a ‘cost’ of conflict but a key basis to identify organised criminal military activity. In this context, law also empowers musicians, activists, and lawyers to frame starvation, as Sinéad did, not as collateral tragedy, but as evidence of a prosecutable crime. If Sinéad O’Connor were here, she may demand that these laws against starvation do more than exist on paper. She may insist they serve the hungry, not through empty promises but through real-world prosecutions and prevention. Anything less, as MENA’s musicians explain, is silence. Dr Felicity Gerry KC is an international barrister, consultant and media commentator with expertise in complex, contemporary legal issues such as human trafficking, homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Check out the article here.
Libertas Chambers
Latest Events
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov – She is the Asia Pacific Member of the Criminal Law Committee – if you are attending, she would be delighted to meet you Conference details here #IBA2023 https://www.ibanet.org/conference-details/CONF2244. Felicity is currently awaiting verdicts in the Al Hassan trial at the ICC and drafted the memorandum that led to the $82m divestment of the Golden City Investment Scheme in Myanmar. She was recently listed as one of the top 5 international lawyers you would want on your side – details here https://lawandcrime.com/partner-content/meet-the-top-5-international-lawyers-you-want-on-your-side/amp/
Libertas Chambers
Celebrating South Asian Heritage Month
NOTE: This event has now been cancelled. Libertas Chambers members celebrate South Asian Heritage Month (SAHM) with a wide-ranging panel discussion on legal issues and careers to honour, recognize, and appreciate South Asian history and culture, as well as to comprehend the rich cultural legacy of countries within South Asia. This webinar presented by our members celebrates the accomplishments and legacy of individuals with origins in the South Asian countries. Presented by our members with South Asian heritage who have expertise in corporate and criminal law on issues concerning South Asian business, countries and heritage in celebration of South Asian heritage month. We are proud to have several practitioners of South Asian origin, which make up 20% of our staff and a collective command of 8 different regional languages. To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
Webinar Video – Defence Statements and Openings: Rule 25.9 and being fair and concise
We recently held a webinar on Defence Statements and Openings: Rule 25.9 and being fair and concise. A practice is growing of asking Defence Counsel to open 1 or 2 sentences after the prosecution opening in serious cases which may not be in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 25.9, taken together with the overriding objective allows for a fair and concise rehearsal of the issues raised in the defence statement or alternatively for the jury to be given the defence statement. This webinar discusses the delivery of defence openings / summary of issues, how defence statements can be framed to support a defence opening, and what is the bare minimum for opening defence issues which is fair. Presented by Dr Felicity Gerry KC and Marie Spenwyn Felicity and Marie have significant experience defending in the most serious of criminal matters including homicide, terrorism and war crimes. Both are co-authors of The Sexual Offences Handbook (3rd Ed forthcoming). They are well versed in taking procedural challenges and taking the best strategic approaches for clients. To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
