‘His knowledge of and familiarity with how POCA powers are deployed across the range of enforcement authorities is invaluable.’
The Legal 500 2021.
"He's very good and very practical."
Chambers and Partners 2020.
‘ A very persuasive advocate in court. ’
The Legal 500 2020.
James is ranked as a tier 2 leading individual in the Legal 500 for POCA and asset forfeiture (London Bar). He is also ranked in Who's Who at the UK Bar (2017 & 2018 Edition) in the field of criminal fraud work.
Direct Public Access
James is qualified to receive instructions directly from members of the public. He is qualified to conduct litigation. Recent cases include:
- Advising on Restraint Proceedings.
- Advising on third party intervention at confiscation.
Professional Panel Appointments
- Attorney General's Panel of Counsel: A Panel.
- Grade 3 Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
- CPS specialist list for Proceeds of Crime: Grade 3.
- CPS specialist list for Fraud and Serious Crime: Grade 3.
"James is very hard-working, bright and very pragmatic in his approach. He is also good at thinking outside the box."
Chambers and Partners 2019.
James has specialist knowledge of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Asset Forfeiture. Government bodies, defendants, third parties and victims all approach James to act in Account Freezing, Restraint, Receivership, Confiscation and Enforcement cases in the Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court and High Court.
"A specialist whose highly comprehensible advice you can trust." "With his technical knowledge comes an enthusiasm for the subject matter."
Chambers and Partners 2020.
'Another amazingly bright practitioner in the field, and always very prepared.’
Legal 500 2019.
James is a barrister who acts across the whole spectrum of regulatory cases. He deals with all types of search warrant, production order and disclosure applications and associated judicial reviews. He also receives regular instructions from the Security Industry Authority.
James’ practice in crime focusses on fraud and money laundering cases where there are significant quantities of material.
James accepts Private Prosecution Instructions.
James accepts immigration instructions and regularly appears in the Upper Tribunal and other Courts in relation to Judicial Review.
James is regularly instructed in Judicial Review matters.
James accepts instructions in relation to Public Inquiries and Inquests.
- Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association.
- Fraud Lawyers Association.
- International Bar Association.
- Cybercrime Lawyers Association.
Cases of Note
NCA v Vlad Filat (appeared for NCA in first contested AFO)
Appeared for the NCA in their first contested application for Account Forfeiture Orders. The Court ordered forfeiture of approximately £500,000 in three accounts held in the name of Vlad Filat, the son of the ex-Moldovan prime minister who was found guilty in 2016 of bribery and corruption offences arising out of his role in the disappearance of 1 billion USD from three Moldovan banks. The Court found the balances derived from the father’s corruption also considered that the bank account funds derived from money laundering.
R v Tom Hayes  1 WLR 5060.
The proper approach to making a tainted gifts finding.
R v Contogoulas & Others
Successful defence of a former Barclays US Swaps trader accused of dishonest manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate benchmark between 2005 and 2007. Led by John Ryder QC (6 KBW College Hill). After a three month case in 2016 where the jury were unable to return verdicts, Mr Contogoulas was acquitted in a re-trial in 2017.
£1.2m VAT fraud conducted by two Indian restaurants over an 8 year period.
Leading junior in a £14m money Laundering case where part of the money was laundered through an alcohol trading company.
A multi defendant case where the defendants distributed and sold non duty paid cigarettes across the UK.
R (on the Application of Chaudhary) v Bristol Crown Court  EWHC Admin 723
Costs in section 59 cases. Search warrants
R (on the Application of Chaudhary) v Bristol Crown Court  EWHC Admin 4096
A challenge to the lawfulness of a search warrant issued by the Crown Court must be made to the High Court by way of judicial review.
R (On Application of Bavi) v Snaresbrook Crown Court  EWHC 4015
Mental health issues in cash forfeiture case.