-
@ Will Jager
2025-02-15 14:13:33
- The UK’s Serious Fraud Office issued its first Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) in January 2025.
- UWOs force individuals to justify wealth or risk asset seizure, with expanded powers since 2023.
- Critics warn of its potential for abuse.
This January, the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) [obtained](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sfo-secures-first-unexplained-wealth-order-in-100m-fraud-case) its first Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) to recover a Lake District property valued at approximately £1.5 million. The property is owned by Claire Schools, ex-wife of solicitor Timothy Schools, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 2022 for fraud. The UWO requires Ms. Schools to explain within 28 days how the property was acquired; failure to do so may lead to its seizure. This marks the Serious Fraud Office's first use of a UWO.
[UWOs](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents) are legal tools first introduced under the Proceeds of Crime Act in 2002, specifically in sections 362A to 362T, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act of 2017. UWOs empower the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) to require individuals to explain the origin of assets over 50,000 GBP that appear disproportionate to their known income. If the individual cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, the assets may be subject to seizure by the government.
UWOs are civil orders and do not require a criminal conviction. Failure to comply with a UWO can make the property presumed recoverable in civil recovery proceedings. Additionally, the court may issue an interim freezing order to prevent the property from being dissipated while under investigation.
In 2023 this law was [updated](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economic-crime-transparency-and-enforcement-bill-2022-overarching-documents/factsheet-unexplained-wealth-order-reforms-web-accessible) to expand the scope of UWOs to apply to more individuals, lowering the burden of proof required to apply for UWOs, and allowing faster property seizure if an individual fails to respond or provide a satisfactory explanation. The process echoes witch trials that once accused, you must prove your innocence or forfeit.
The use of a UWO in this case highlights a growing effort by the UK to tackle illicit wealth, but it also raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power.
As explained by Kingsly Napley in [Lexology](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=287a5b60-5612-4093-ba8f-272252c44cb5) *“The wide range of parties that can be targeted by UWOs, the reverse burden of proof that applies and the pressure on UK authorities to be seen to do more to stamp out suspected dirty money, means that many people may find themselves fighting to retain their assets.”*
With the use of more UWOs to come in the future, the real impact will continue to unfold in the coming years.