The moving defendants sought to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their assets in a civil fraud action involving alleged fraudulent factoring transactions worth approximately $6.5 million.
The court considered whether the plaintiff continued to demonstrate a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.
Evidence showed that the moving defendants’ companies received substantial funds from entities involved in the fraud, that explanations for the transactions were unsupported by documentation, and that the alleged sale of a business appeared suspicious.
The court also noted conduct inconsistent with the injunction, including the use of undisclosed bank accounts.
The court held that the plaintiff continued to meet the requirements for a Mareva injunction.
