Who is ‘wife A’ who blew £1.6million a YEAR in Harrods? Mystery banker’s spouse who spent £150,000 on jewellery in a day, used 35 credit cards and owns a £7m London home must reveal how she got rich
Wife of jailed ex-chairman of a state bank outside EU is told to explain her wealth
Woman enjoyed using a private jet and spent £150,000 on jewellery at Harrods
In total, she spent £16m on luxury items from the department store in 10 years
Woman was subject of the first two UWOs obtained by National Crime Agency
A mystery banker’s wife who spent an average of £1.6m a year at Harrods for a decade has been ordered to explain how she can afford a luxury lifestyle which includes British property worth £22m. The woman, who is married to a jailed former head of an unnamed country’s state bank, was told to disclose the source of her money by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which has been given the power to issue so-called unexplained wealth orders.
She appealed to the High Court but has now lost the case and must say where the cash is from. In addition to the UK properties, the woman also enjoyed using a private jet, drank fine wines and spent £150,000 on jewellery at Harrods in a single day. Between 2010 and 2016, she has spent £16m on luxury items from the department store in a decade using 35 credit cards issued to family members and charged to a state bank her husband chaired in their native country outside Europe.
She owns at least one London home worth £7.5million after putting down a deposit of £4million and paying off the mortgage in five years.
In addition to the UK properties the woman also enjoyed using a private jet, drank fine wines and spent £150,000 on jewellery at Harrods in a single day。 In addition to the UK properties the woman also enjoyed using a private jet, drank fine wines and spent £150,000 on jewellery at Harrods in a single day
Her husband, known only as Mr A, was the chairman of a bank outside Europe, in which the state had a controlling stake, from 2001 until his resignation in 2015. The NCA cannot understand how she came to have so much cash. She argues he made the money through work as a commercial banker.
But if the woman is now unable to explain the source of the wealth, she risks having her houses seized.
The NCA cannot understand how she came to have so much cash. She argues he made the money through work as a commercial banker. But if the woman is now unable to explain the source of the wealth, she risks having her houses seized. Mrs A was the subject of the first two UWOs, which were obtained by the National Crime Agency (NCA) in February in relation to two properties worth a total of £22 million.
Her husband, known only as Mr A, was the chairman of a bank outside Europe, in which the state had a controlling stake, from 2001 until his resignation in 2015. He was subsequently convicted of fraud and embezzlement, sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay the bank approximately 39 million US dollars. Mrs A’s husband’s official salary was between £22,000 and £54,000 but somehow his net worth was estimated at $56million. Mrs A took the NCA to the High Court in London to discharge one of the two UWOs, which was made against an £11.5 million property purchased in 2009 by a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
The NCA, which considers that the source of the funds to purchase the properties is unexplained, has the power to seize assets if officials believe the owner is a politically exposed person (PEP) - someone from outside the European Economic Area in a position of power that makes them liable to bribery or corruption - or someone with suspected links to serious or organised crime, and they are unable explain the source of their wealth.
At the High Court on Wednesday, Mr Justice Supperstone dismissed Mrs A’s application to discharge the UWO, and also discharged an anonymity order preventing the identification of the couple, the non-EEA country, the bank, the two properties and Mr A’s lawyers in the non-EEA country.
Mrs A argued that her husband is not a PEP, but the judge ruled against her.
Mr Justice Supperstone also noted that ‘independent of the conviction there is evidence which provides some corroboration for the allegations made against him relating to the misuse of the bank’s funds of which he was found guilty’.
He stated that ‘three separate loyalty cards were issued to Mrs A’ by department store Harrods, where she spent more than £16 million between September 2006 and June 2016.
The judge also said he was ‘not satisfied’ that it was ‘in the interests of justice that non-disclosure of the identity of Mrs A or her husband is necessary in order to protect their interests’.
He concluded that ‘identification of Mrs A and her husband, the non-EEA country involved and the state-owned enterprise that employed him are all matters of very real public interest’.
He directed that the anonymity order stay in place until noon on October 10, pending the outcome of an application for permission to appeal over both the ruling on the UWO and on the anonymity order.
James Lewis QC, for Mrs A, said the case raised ‘clearly important issues’ which ‘should be put before the Court of Appeal’.
Mr Justice Supperstone rejected Mr Lewis’s application to appeal. Mr Lewis indicated that Mrs A would pursue the case to the Court of Appeal.
Donald Toon, NCA director for economic crime, said: 'I am very pleased that the court dismissed the respondent’s (Mrs A’s) arguments today. This demonstrates that the NCA is absolutely right to ask probing questions about the funds used to purchase prime property.
‘We will continue with this case and seek to quickly move others to the High Court. We are determined to use the powers available to us to their fullest extent where we have concerns that we cannot determine legitimate sources of wealth.’
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said: 'The Government has dragged its feet on implementing these orders. We now need swift large-scale action to tackle the use of the City of London as the money-laundering capital of the world.
‘Dirty money is undermining the standing of our financial sector and the Government needs to get its act together to use the UWOs much more extensively and effectively.’
