Redaction Of Bank Employees' Names Preserved In Shah v HSBC

In the long-running dispute, Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd (see our Law-Now reporting on the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2010), the Court of Appeal has finally considered what level of disclosure the bank was required to give to prove its money laundering suspicions. In particular, the Court considered whether the bank was required, as part of standard disclosure, to disclose the names of its employees who reported suspicions of money laundering to the bank's money laundering reporting officer ("MLRO") in circumstances where there was a dispute as to the genuineness of those suspicions. The Court found, on the facts of the case, that the names of the individuals did not need to be disclosed as that information neither adversely affected the bank's case, nor adversely affected or supported the claimant's case.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

In the long-running dispute, Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd (see our Law-Now reporting on the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4 February 2010), the Court of Appeal has finally considered what level of disclosure the bank was required to give to prove its money laundering suspicions. In particular, the Court considered whether the bank was required, as part of standard disclosure, to disclose the names of its employees who reported suspicions of money laundering to the bank's money laundering reporting officer ("MLRO") in circumstances where there was a dispute as to the genuineness of those suspicions. The Court found, on the facts of the case, that the names of the individuals did not need to be disclosed as that information neither adversely affected the bank's case, nor adversely affected or supported the claimant's case. Mr Shah and his wife, Mrs Shah, (the "Claimants") are claiming damages of $300 million from HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd ("H Bank"). The losses were allegedly sustained as a result of three delays and one refusal to execute certain instructions given by Mr Shah to transfer funds from H Bank to an account that he held with Credit Agricole. H Bank delayed acting on the instructions because the bank reported suspicions that the proposed transactions may have resulted in money laundering to the Serious Organised Crime Agency ("SOCA") and sought permission to proceed. Once a report had been made, the bank was unable to carry out the instructions until SOCA either permitted or did not refuse...