19 November 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 1 of 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 October 2025
by Multiple authors
11 June 2025
30 January 2025
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
6 December 2024
14 November 2024
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
15 October 2024
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
14 December 2023
13 December 2023
17 October 2023
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
21 July 2023
10 July 2023
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
8 March 2023
2 March 2023
14 February 2023
13 February 2023
8 February 2023
19 January 2023
3 October 2022
22 September 2022
by Emma Allen
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
25 July 2022
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
by Emma Allen
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
29 July 2022
17 June 2022
13 June 2022
26 May 2022
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
4 April 2022
by Emma Allen
5 April 2022
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
21 September 2021
13 September 2021
6 September 2021
2 August 2021
21 July 2021
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
26 May 2021
5 May 2021
21 April 2021
31 March 2021
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
24 February 2021
20 January 2021
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
23 November 2020
16 October 2020
23 September 2020
by Stuart Broom
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
15 April 2020
27 April 2020
21 April 2020
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
26 February 2020
21 February 2020
2 June 2020
16 June 2020
9 July 2020
21 July 2020
3 December 2021
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
8 October 2021
10 January 2022
20 January 2022
22 March 2022
by Stuart Broom
7 April 2022