- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- The sting and the ta…
- On this page
19 November 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 1 of 104 Insights
The sting and the tale
- Quick read
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 underlying fraud
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.
Enter the operatives
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.
The sting
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 Court's response
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.
Unfinished business
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.
In this series
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
21 October 2025
by Multiple authors
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11 June 2025
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30 January 2025
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
