19. November 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 1 von 104 Insights
We usually (try to) write notes about interesting new legal cases or, on a particularly racy day, legislation. This piece is neither. But it's an amazing story.
What should a court do when an apparently strong, perhaps unanswerable, claim in fraud relies on knowledge obtained by (thoroughly) unethical means?
This was the difficult question posed to Deputy High Court Judge Stephen Houseman KC in Salinas Pliego v Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd [2025] EWHC 2968 (Comm), a recent Commercial Court decision that reads more like a spy thriller than a typical fraud case.
The case involves allegations that Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego and his company were deceived into concluding a Stock Loan Agreement in July 2021. It was alleged that Mr Salinas was fraudulently induced to transfer shares in Elektra (a Mexican company) as collateral, which were then misappropriated by the defendant, Vladimir Sklarov. Sklarov had gained notoriety for perpetrating similar 'stock-lending frauds' in the past. The judge noted there was a good and perhaps strongly arguable case that the fraud claim would succeed at trial. So far, so good.
But the fraud allegations became secondary to what happened next. In August 2024, a company associated with the claimants retained BC Strategy, a business intelligence firm, to support the litigation. BC Strategy boasted "a select group of veterans of elite units in the Israeli intelligence community, combined with financial and legal experts".
The engagement agreement outlined BC Strategy's methodology: they would identify "Human Targets" to approach and extract intelligence, create "elaborate, personalized cover stories" for each target, and deploy "field agents" and "operatives" to build relationships and extract relevant information. The claimants refused to disclose how much BC Strategy was paid.
BC Strategy's 'human target' turned out to be the defendants' litigation solicitor. They lured him into meeting on the false premise that he was pitching for a potential new client, then secretly filmed and recorded the meetings; all the while extracting information about the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the defendants' position, including litigation and settlement strategy. There were three meetings — one virtual and two in person abroad over lunch and dinner with alcohol — totalling about 6.5 hours, during which the solicitor was "skilfully and tenaciously steered" into discussing confidential aspects of his clients' case.
The operative persistently led the solicitor with questions designed to pressure him into privileged territory, and was clearly "very well briefed about the issues in these proceedings". The solicitor was duly lulled into false confidence, sharing personal and privileged information, hoping to win a major new client as a newly-promoted partner. In the defendants' words, the claimants intended BC Strategy to go "privilege hunting".
The claimants accepted the methods were unethical but denied responsibility for the use of such methods (blaming BC Strategy), claimed they gained no unfair advantage, and argued it would be disproportionate to strike out their claim when the defendant had committed significant fraud.
The judge decided that the claimants intended or expected BC Strategy to engage in precisely this kind of unethical conduct, noting there was no evidence they were shocked to receive the fruits of the covert operation. On the contrary, they sought to use it in their summary judgment application.
He held that targeting an adversary's solicitor to extract sensitive information "is anathema to the norms and values of civil litigation" and "offends justice", constituting an abuse of process regardless of whether the information obtained was actually privileged.
Yet the judge did not strike out the entire claim, finding this would be disproportionate where there was a decent prospect of success on the fraud claim and a policy in favour of exposing serious wrongdoing. Instead, he struck out the summary judgment application and indicated the claimants would pay costs on an indemnity basis.
The judge adjourned key issues to a future 'Information Review Hearing' to determine the precise evidential status of the illicitly obtained information and whether the claimants' possession of it creates a substantial risk of an unfair trial – leaving open the possibility of more severe sanctions including striking out the entire claim.
The judge granted permission to appeal, noting "the interplay between competing policies deserves appellate attention", and candidly observed he may have been "too lenient" on the claimants. So, we may hear this story again. The takeaway is an obvious one. Be careful using 'operatives'. They can ruin a perfectly good case.
21. Oktober 2025
von mehreren Autoren
11. Juni 2025
von Ryan Ferry, Edwina Kelly
30. Januar 2025
von Katie Chandler
22. Januar 2025
von mehreren Autoren
6. Dezember 2024
14. November 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
14. November 2024
von Emma Allen
8. November 2024
30. Oktober 2024
von mehreren Autoren
15. Oktober 2024
von Emma Allen, Andrew Spencer
16. Juli 2024
von Tim Strong, Kate Hamblin
5. Juli 2024
von Stuart Broom, Tom Charnley
21. März 2024
von Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
1. Februar 2024
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
12. Februar 2024
von Tim Strong, Nicole Baldev
14. Dezember 2023
13. Dezember 2023
17. Oktober 2023
von Katie Chandler
12. September 2023
von Tom Charnley
14. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
4. August 2023
von mehreren Autoren
21. Juli 2023
10. Juli 2023
von Katie Chandler
1. Juni 2023
von mehreren Autoren
3. Mai 2023
von James Bryden
20. April 2023
von James Bryden
5. April 2023
von Tom Charnley
8. März 2023
2. März 2023
von Katie Chandler, Emma Allen
14. Februar 2023
13. Februar 2023
8. Februar 2023
von Jessie Prynne
19. Januar 2023
von Georgina Jones
3. Oktober 2022
von Gemma Broughall
22. September 2022
von Emma Allen
9. August 2022
von Nick Maday
25. Juli 2022
6. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28. Juli 2022
von Emma Allen
27. Juli 2022
von Stuart Broom
29. Juli 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
17. Juni 2022
von Stephanie High
13. Juni 2022
26. Mai 2022
31. Mai 2022
von mehreren Autoren
4. April 2022
von Emma Allen
5. April 2022
von Stephanie High
31. März 2022
von mehreren Autoren
21. September 2021
von Matthew Caskie
13. September 2021
6. September 2021
von Stephanie High
2. August 2021
21. Juli 2021
15. Juli 2021
von Jess Thomas
26. Mai 2021
von David de Ferrars
5. Mai 2021
von Stephen O'Grady
21. April 2021
von Stephanie High
31. März 2021
26. Februar 2021
von Tim Strong
24. Februar 2021
20. Januar 2021
von Stephanie High
12. Januar 2021
von Tim Strong
23. November 2020
16. Oktober 2020
23. September 2020
von Stuart Broom
7. Oktober 2020
von Nick Storrs
12. Mai 2020
18. Mai 2020
von Katie Chandler
9. April 2020
von mehreren Autoren
15. April 2020
27. April 2020
21. April 2020
von Stephanie High
11. März 2020
von James Bryden
17. März 2020
von Stuart Broom
26. Februar 2020
von Tim Strong, Andrew Howell
21. Februar 2020
von Andrew Howell
2. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
16. Juni 2020
von Georgina Jones
2. Juli 2020
von Tim Strong, Georgina Jones
9. Juli 2020
21. Juli 2020
3. Dezember 2021
24. November 2021
von Stuart Broom
8. Oktober 2021
von Katie Chandler
10. Januar 2022
von Tim Strong, Jess Thomas
20. Januar 2022
von Natalia Faekova
8. März 2022
von Jess Thomas, Lucy Waddicor
22. März 2022
von Stuart Broom
7. April 2022
von Emma Allen, Georgina Jones