A family law dispute could trigger scrutiny under financial crime and AML frameworks

On 19 March 2025, the Court of Appeal heard the case of Helliwell (respondent) v Entwistle (appellant) and many Family lawyers (and indeed the UK population) had the benefit of watching the livestream of the hearing and seeing in real time the arguments put forward by the parties’ Counsel.

The Judgment has now been handed down and the Court of Appeal has allowed Mr Entwistle’s appeal, determining that the prenuptial agreement was vitiated by Ms Entwistle’s deliberate non-disclosure (it was said that 73% of her wealth was not disclosed to him).

Accordingly,  the pre-nuptial agreement ‘cannot stand’.

The Court of Appeal  concluded that there must now be a ‘fresh consideration’ of the husband’s needs and, in particular, his housing provision – crucially, on the basis that the nuptial agreement is effectively ignored. The matter has been remitted to the High Court, where the parties will appear again, unless a settlement is now reached (noting that Mr Entwistle had originally been seeking £2.5m and Ms Helliwell had, at one stage, offered him £800,000).

Key Findings from the Judgment

• Deliberate Non-Disclosure: Jenny Helliwell failed to disclose approximately 73% of her wealth during the negotiation of a prenuptial agreement. This was deemed fraudulent and deliberate by the Court of Appeal.
• Appendices Left Blank: The prenuptial agreement included appendices meant to list each party’s assets and liabilities. These were left blank, undermining the integrity of the financial disclosure process.
• Complex Business Interests: Helliwell worked for her father, who owns a large property and business portfolio in the Middle East. Her income included £650,000 annually, mostly from rental income, suggesting a substantial real estate portfolio.
• No Mention of Trusts: While the judgment discusses business assets, property portfolios, and Middle Eastern connections, it does not reference offshore trusts or fiduciary structures directly

Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055/1071 presents several money laundering red flags

• The case of Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055/1071 presents several money laundering red flags, particularly in the context of fraudulent non-disclosure of assets and misrepresentation in legal proceedings.
• While the case itself is a family law dispute, the conduct described could trigger scrutiny under financial crime and AML frameworks.

Although offshore trusts are not explicitly mentioned, the following elements could be considered red flags or indicators of potential offshore structuring:

• Middle Eastern business ties: These often involve jurisdictions with less transparency or trust-friendly regimes.
• High-value property portfolios: These may be held through corporate or trust structures for tax or privacy reasons.
• Blank asset disclosure: This could be a tactic to obscure ownership through layered entities, including offshore trusts.

Key Money Laundering Red Flags in the Case

1. Deliberate Concealment of Assets
   1. Jenny Helliwell concealed approximately £48 million, or 73% of her wealth, during financial disclosure for a prenuptial agreement.
   2. Concealing such a large portion of assets raises concerns about the source of funds, beneficial ownership, and intent to evade legal obligations.
2. False Representations in Legal Documents
   1. She expressly warranted that full disclosure had been made, which was later proven false.
   2. Misrepresentation in legal documents is a classic red flag for fraudulent financial activity and potential predicate offences under AML laws.
3. Use of Pre-Nuptial Agreement to Shield Assets
   1. The pre-nup was used to exclude future financial claims but was based on fraudulent disclosure.
   2. This suggests an attempt to create a legal façade to protect assets, which can resemble layering in money laundering schemes.
4. Tax-Related Justifications for Non-Disclosure
   1. Helliwell cited her and her father’s tax affairs as reasons for concealing assets.
   2. This raises the possibility of tax evasion, which is a predicate offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
5. Control and Timing of Agreement Execution
   1. The pre-nup was presented on the morning of the wedding, with the wife and her father controlling the process.
   2. This could indicate coercive or manipulative structuring, often seen in schemes designed to obscure financial realities.

Implications for AML and Regulatory Oversight

1. Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR): Legal professionals involved may have had a duty to file SARs if they suspected the concealment was linked to criminal property.
2. Source of Wealth Checks: The origin of the concealed £48 million should be scrutinized, especially if held offshore or in opaque structures.
3. Trust and Company Service Providers (TCSPs): If any trusts or corporate vehicles were used to hold these assets, TCSPs involved may face regulatory exposure.
4. Potential POCA Investigation: The deliberate concealment and misrepresentation could trigger asset recovery or criminal investigation under POCA.

Jersey-Specific Guidance on Financial Crime Compliance

In Jersey, family law practitioners and trustees must be aware of the following compliance obligations:

1. Trustee Responsibilities
   1. Trustees of express trusts are considered Schedule 2 Businesses under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
   2. If acting “as a business,” trustees must:
   3. Register with the JFSC
   4. Appoint an MLRO and MLCO
   5. Maintain AML policies and procedures
2. Legal Professionals' Duties
   1. Legal professionals must comply with
      1. Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR)
   2. Some Legal professionals (SCH2) must comply with the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008, including:
      1. Customer Due Diligence (CDD)
      2. Risk-based assessments for each client and matter
3. Intersection with Family Law
   1. Asset concealment in divorce proceedings may constitute a predicate offence under the Proceeds of Crime Law.
   2. If a practitioner suspects that assets are being hidden via sham trusts or offshore structures, they may be required to:
   3. File a SAR with the Jersey FIU
   4. Decline or terminate the retainer if the risk is too high
   5. Justify their actions to the JFSC or Law Society of Jersey

References

• Fraudulent Non-Disclosure as a Vitiating Factor in Prenuptial ...https://www.casemine.com/commentary/uk/fraudulent-non-disclosure-as-a-vitiating-factor-in-prenuptial-agreements-%E2%80%93-helliwell-v-entwistle-2025-ewca-civ-1055/view
• Helliwell v Entwistle Costs judgment - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Helliwell-v-Entwistle-Costs-judgment.pdf
• Helliwell -v- Entwistle - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/helliwell-v-entwistle/
• Helliwell v Entwistle live – the conclusion! https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/insights/quick-reads/102kyu9-helliwell-v-entwistle-live-the-conclusion/
• Entwistle v Helliwell CA-2024-000509 FINAL JUDGMENT https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Entwistle-v-Helliwell-CA-2024-000509-FINAL-JUDGMENT.pdf
• BAILII - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/1071.html
• STEP UK News Digest, 4 August 2025: Entwistle pre-nup disallowed for wife's non-disclosure - https://www.step.org/industry-news/entwistle-pre-nup-disallowed-due-wifes-non-disclosure