Injunctions in fraud disputes: early action and asset preservation
Insight
Fraud disputes often depend on swift early action. Assets can be moved within hours, ownership obscured, and evidence destroyed long before trial.
England and Wales is a leading jurisdiction for civil fraud claims in large part due to the breadth and effectiveness of its interim remedies. The English courts have developed a sophisticated and pragmatic approach to injunctions, allowing early intervention to protect and preserve assets, and prevent further harm – often before the full picture has emerged.
We outline the principal injunctions deployed in fraud cases, and the role they play in shaping outcomes at an early stage.
What is an injunction?
An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do something, or to refrain from doing something. In fraud cases, injunctions are usually sought on an interim basis, before liability has been determined.
Their purpose is not to decide the dispute early. It is to stabilise the position – by preventing dissipation of assets, preserving specific property or stopping onward transfers – while investigations and proceedings continue.
Because injunctions can interfere significantly with a respondent’s freedom of action, the court expects those seeking them to act promptly, fairly and proportionately.
Why England and Wales?
The effectiveness of the courts' interim powers contributes significantly to England and Wales' strong reputation in fraud litigation. In particular, the English courts can:
- grant urgent relief where there is a real risk of assets being moved or concealed;
- act without notice where advance warning would undermine the relief sought;
- restrain assets on a worldwide basis in appropriate cases;
- grant orders against unidentified wrongdoers (including in cyber and crypto fraud);
- make orders that bind parties beyond the immediate respondent where appropriate; and
- provide interim support for foreign proceedings (including under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 – see below).
These powers are exercised by specialist judges within a well-established framework, and are enforced in practice – particularly against banks and financial institutions, custodians, trustees and other third parties who hold or control assets. For that reason, England and Wales is the jurisdiction often allowing control of key assets in fraud disputes from an early stage, even when the substantive proceedings are pursued elsewhere.
When injunctions are used
Injunctions are typically sought where dishonesty is alleged, and time is of the essence. Common features include a real risk of dissipation, uncertainty as to the identity of the wrongdoer, and/or the need to preserve assets before a full understanding of the factual position is possible.
They also arise on the defensive side of fraud disputes, where urgent relief has already been granted and the priority is to manage its scope, protect legitimate interests and ensure the court has a complete and accurate picture.
Principal injunctions used in fraud cases
There are many forms of injunctive relief available in fraud cases. In our experience, the following are commonly deployed.
Freezing injunctions
A freezing injunction restrains a party from dealing with assets up to a specified value. Its purpose is to prevent enforcement being frustrated by the removal or dissipation of assets before the dispute is resolved.
Freezing injunctions address the central risk in fraud cases: that by the time a claim succeeds, there is nothing left to recover. Properly used, they preserve value and stabilise the position early on.
In practice, their impact is often swift. Accounts are frozen, transactions halted and counterparties put on notice.
A wide range of assets can be caught, including bank accounts, investments, real property, valuable chattels and digital assets. Orders may be limited to England and Wales or extended worldwide where justified.
Points to note:
- A freezing injunction preserves assets but does not confer ownership or security.
- So that they are workable and proportionate, resulting orders are typically framed to permit ordinary living expenses and reasonable legal costs.
- Breach may amount to contempt of court, with serious consequences.
- Delay can undermine urgency; timing is often decisive.
We regularly advise on both obtaining and challenging freezing injunctions, and on shaping orders that are effective in practice and sustainable on return.
Proprietary injunctions
A proprietary injunction preserves specific property on the basis that it belongs, or arguably belongs, to the claimant.
Unlike freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions are grounded in asserted ownership rather than the risk of future enforcement being defeated. That distinction has important practical consequences. In particular:
- the focus is on preserving property said to belong to another;
- there is generally less emphasis on demonstrating a risk of dissipation, although urgency and justification remain relevant; and
- where established, proprietary claims may confer priority in the event the respondent becomes insolvent.
The English courts also recognise that property may, in appropriate cases, be traced into substitute assets. This allows interim relief to follow value rather than form – an important feature in misappropriation and diversion of assets.
Section 25 injunctions
Section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 allows the English court to grant interim relief in support of proceedings taking place outside England and Wales.
This is a key feature of England’s role in cross-border fraud disputes, enabling English interim remedies to be used alongside foreign litigation or arbitration, without requiring the substantive dispute to be relocated.
Section 25 relief is frequently sought where assets have a sufficient connection with England, but the merits are being determined elsewhere. Used properly, it allows the English courts to provide early control over critical assets while respecting the primacy of the foreign forum.
We regularly work with overseas advisers to coordinate section 25 relief as part of a wider strategy, ensuring that English interim orders complement, rather than cut across, proceedings abroad.
Persons unknown injunctions
Modern fraud often involves anonymous actors, particularly in cyber-enabled and cryptocurrency-related cases. Persons unknown injunctions allow early intervention against unidentified wrongdoers (defined by description rather than by name), to restrain onward transfers and preserve assets while identities are investigated.
Their effectiveness depends on careful definition and a realistic plan for enforcement, particularly against relevant third parties. The English courts have shown considerable flexibility in adapting these orders to modern fraud scenarios.
Passport orders and travel restrictions
A passport order restricts travel or requires the surrender of travel documents to prevent evasion of the English courts' process.
These are exceptional measures, reserved for cases where there is a real risk that a respondent will abscond or otherwise frustrate enforcement. The court approaches them with caution, focusing closely on necessity and proportionality.
Ancillary orders
Injunctions are often accompanied by additional orders designed to render them effective in practice. In fraud cases, these can include:
- asset disclosure orders (to identify what exists, where it is, and in whose name);
- search orders (to identify, preserve and secure evidence);
- delivery up or payment into court (to secure assets pending further order);
- restrictions on dealing through third parties, or 'notification' style provisions to monitor material movements; and
- receivership-type measures where a freezing order alone is not enough.
These ancillary measures are not ends in themselves. Their role is to support the core injunction by identifying assets, preserving evidence, and ensuring the order is not undermined in practice. Used carefully, they can materially enhance the effectiveness of interim relief and, in turn, the substantive proceedings.
Questions relating to evidence preservation and disclosure – both at the interim stage and beyond – are explored in our related toolkit notes 'Disclosure in fraud litigation in England and Wales' and 'Preventing destruction of evidence: search and imaging orders in fraud cases'.
Enforcement and third parties
English injunctions carry real teeth. Breach may amount to contempt of court, which can result in severe sanctions (including fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment).
These sanctions can also apply to banks, custodians, trustees and other third parties, so that asset-holders on notice of injunctions are required to hold the line while the court process runs. This practical enforceability is a key reason England is a jurisdiction frequently used to secure early control of assets in multi-jurisdictional fraud disputes.
Using injunctions together
In fraud cases, specific injunctions are rarely used in isolation. Common combinations include freezing injunctions alongside proprietary claims, persons unknown injunctions, supported by early engagement with relevant third parties and section 25 relief aligned with foreign proceedings.
The objective here is early preservation of options, not escalation for its own sake. Our strengths lie in knowing which tools to use and how far to go.
To meet the rise and increasing sophistication of fraud, victims need powerful legal tools and lawyers who know how to use them. In this guide, we provide an overview of the key issues involved in fraud cases and outline some of the fraud litigation tools available in England.
This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
© Farrer & Co LLP, June 2026
