We act for people who have not done what they are accused of.
That is worth stating plainly, because this is an area where the distinction matters. If you are looking for a firm to extract you from something you did, we are not that firm and we will say so at the first meeting.
What we do is act for the individual or the business that has been caught up in an investigation, named in someone else’s wrongdoing, or accused on a basis that does not survive contact with the evidence. That happens more often than people outside the process realise, and the consequences of it happening to you are the same whether the accusation is well founded or not: accounts frozen, reputation damaged, and a process that can run for years.
Secure an Assessment
Who We Act For
- People named in someone else’s investigation. A business associate, an employer or a counterparty is under investigation, and your accounts and records have been swept up alongside theirs.
- Directors and senior managers facing personal exposure for conduct they neither knew about nor authorised.
- Businesses where an employee or agent has done something wrong and the company is now facing liability for having failed to prevent it.
- People whose funds have been restrained on the strength of an allegation that has not been tested, and who now cannot pay their staff, their mortgage or their lawyers.
The common thread is that the person in front of us did not do what is alleged, and needs the evidence to establish that rather than a negotiation about how much trouble they are in.
How We Approach It
Establish What Is Actually Alleged
Investigations of this kind frequently begin with less than the person under investigation fears. The first task is to establish precisely what is alleged, on what evidence, and what has simply been assumed.
This is evidence-led work. We reconstruct the transaction history, identify what the authorities actually hold, and separate the documented from the inferred. In our experience that exercise alone changes the shape of a great many cases.
Restore Access to Funds
A saisie judiciaire is a restraint order applied for by the Attorney General under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, usually without notice, freezing property against a possible future confiscation.
Where the restraint is disproportionate, procedurally defective, or has captured property with no connection to the allegation, we can apply to the Royal Court to vary or discharge it. In practice much of this work is about restoring enough liquidity for a business to keep trading, for staff to be paid, and for a defence to be funded at all.
Co-ordinate Across Jurisdictions
Investigations of this kind rarely sit in one place. Agencies in different countries act on different timetables and on different information, and a person under investigation can find themselves answering inconsistent accounts of the same events.
Co-ordinating the response, so that one consistent and accurate account is given everywhere, is frequently what resolves these matters. It is also where they most often go wrong when nobody is managing it.
Money Laundering Allegations
We have not defended a money laundering charge, and we would rather say so than imply otherwise.
We could act for someone falsely accused of one. The statutory offences turn on knowledge and suspicion, and a person who did not have the requisite guilty knowledge has a defence that is established on evidence. That is the same work we do everywhere else on this page.
Being Straight About Outcomes
Not every defence succeeds, and some succeed only in part. We have run defences where the outcome was better than it would otherwise have been without being everything the client wanted.
We would rather tell you that at the outset than promise an acquittal. Anyone who guarantees you an outcome in a criminal matter is either inexperienced or not being straight with you.
Why Clients Instruct Sinels
We operate completely free of institutional conflicts of interest. We hold no standing retainers with the banks, trust companies or public authorities who frequently sit on the other side of these matters.
Most of our work in this field is offensive rather than defensive. We pursue fraudsters, trace assets and support prosecutions, which means we know how these cases are built. That is a considerable advantage when the task is to take one apart.
Speak to a Senior Jersey Advocate
Or Call Us: +44 (0)1534 620500
Frequently Asked Questions
My accounts have been frozen and I have not been charged with anything. What can be done?
A saisie judiciaire can be granted without notice and before any charge is brought, so this situation is more common than people expect.
We can apply to the Royal Court to vary or discharge the order. Grounds can include disproportionality, material non-disclosure by the Crown when the order was obtained, or the inclusion of property with no connection to the alleged offending. Applications frequently focus first on carve-outs for ordinary living costs, wages and legal fees, so that normal life can continue while the substantive matter is resolved.
Act quickly. These orders are considerably easier to address early.
Does Jersey have the UK Bribery Act’s “adequate procedures” defence?
No. Unlike section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010, the Corruption (Jersey) Law 2006 contains no statutory defence of adequate procedures for corporate entities.
Where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent, connivance or neglect of a director or manager, both the individual and the company can face liability. A compliance manual on its own does not answer the allegation, which makes the underlying evidence about what actually happened decisive.
Can a company be liable for something an employee did without its knowledge?
Under Article 35A of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, a financial services business commits a strict liability offence where an associated person, such as an employee, agent or service provider, engages in money laundering. The Crown does not need to prove that senior management knew.
The statutory defence is that the business maintained and applied adequate prevention procedures in practice, not merely on paper. Establishing that is an evidential exercise about how the business actually operated, and it is work we can do.
Will you act for me if I did do it?
No. We act for people who have been wrongly accused. If that is not your position, we will tell you at the first meeting and you should instruct someone else.
