Barry Stancombe (1983)
Legal 500 2018 Ranked Tier 1, Leading Juniors
“He possesses a great knowledge of the law and procedure when it comes to big-time litigation.”
Chambers & Partners 2019
"Barry's written work is fantastic and when in court he commands respect. He is a persuasive lawyer who wins arguments." "Very bullish and no-nonsense, he is very clear on what should be done."
‘He represents the FCA and defendants in post-conviction and civil restraint matters.’ Legal 500 2018
"Fast worker who has a keen eye for detail and is a shrewd negotiator. He's very happy to engage with clients and explain things clearly." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"His technical knowledge of POCA work is fantastic. The strategy and tactics he employs are impressive - he thinks well ahead and guesses what the opponents will do."
"He is a very polished professional from a civil law background, who is a great asset when you're dealing with asset forfeiture where crime and civil proceedings overlap." (Chambers & Partners 2017)
"A lawyer with excellent advocacy skills who works very quickly and very thoroughly." (Chambers & Partners 2016)
“Barry is a specialist in POCA and asset forfeiture, and has a substantial practice both on the contentious and advisory sides. Barry is recognised as “a leading player” in the world of asset recovery. His “no-nonsense, very sensible, very pugnacious” advocacy style is widely seen as a welcome breath of fresh air in long-running, highly complex asset forfeiture proceedings.” (Chambers & Partners 2015)
"His advocacy is very good but it's his application, practicality and commerciality that really stand out." "A fierce cross-examiner who won't give an inch but does so with great courtesy and dignity." (Chambers & Partners 2014)
Barry has been recommended in the POCA and Asset Forfeiture Section in Chambers & Partners since its first publication.
A member of the Proceeds of Crime Lawyers' Association, R3, and the Victims of Crime Association of Lawyers, Barry regularly lectures on asset forfeiture and proceeds of crime issues.
He is a specialist in asset forfeiture and proceeds of crime particularly in the areas of restraint, receivership, confiscation, civil recovery, commercial fraud and money laundering.
Barry advises on all aspects of proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture. He is instructed by the main prosecution agencies including the SFO and FCA.
He advises corporations, trusts, banks, IPs and private individuals on this area of law. Barry’s practice also encompasses the complementary areas of civil fraud and insolvency.
He is also regularly instructed on behalf of court appointed management and enforcement receivers in high value receiverships and has been involved in most of the leading receivership cases before the Courts. For example, Barry acted for the Management Receiver and Liquidators in the matter of Sustainable Growth. Three directors were convicted on 5 December 2014 at Southwark Crown Court of offences including conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy to furnish false information, fraudulent trading and Bribery Act 2010 offences as part of the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into Sustainable Growth Group’s £23m fraud between April 2011 and February 2012.
Barry was appointed restraint counsel on several large SFO cases including the Birmingham Mortgage Fraud Case and in the matter of GPN (pension fraud of £52m). He is currently acting for the SFO as restraint Counsel on various fraud cases involving alleged pension liberation frauds.
Barry also acted for the SFO in obtaining the SFO’s first property freezing order (in 2014) in the recently reported civil recovery case of SFO v Saleh (2018) https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2018/03/22/sfo-recovers-4-4m-from-corrupt-diplomats-in-chad-oil-share-deal/
Barry acts for defendants in substantial fraud and confiscation proceedings, including acting for third parties asserting their legal and beneficial rights in property.
Current and recent cases also include:
CPS v P (acting for the Management Receiver in respect of hidden assets/foreign claims brought against the MR by D in a foreign jurisdiction); NCA v T (acting for a defendant company in civil recovery proceedings); H & H v A & others (acting iBarry acted for the FCA in restraint and contempt proceedings in Operation Tidsworth. Five Defendants were convicted and jailed at Southwark Crown Court in September 2018 of an investment fraud (boiler room scam) which fleeced investors of c£3m civil proceedings following an arbitral award and freezing injunction granted in support thereof); Davies & Others v Jones & CPS (successfully varying a CJA restraint order to permit judgment creditors to enforce against the convicted D’s shares); Choudhury (acting successfully in highly contentious bankruptcy proceedings for the Trustee in Bankruptcy in TUV claims against a convicted defendant subject to confiscation proceedings. Claims settled); M v CPS (acting for a third party company in confiscation enforcement proceedings); N (advising on competing claims over Spanish properties); N v Met Police (acting for an MSB in cash seizure proceedings – seized funds successfully returned); and acting for the Official Receiver in various cases where there is a conflict between confiscation and insolvency.
International work has included acting for the Attorney General of the Turks & Caicos Islands.
Barry acted for the FCA in restraint and contempt proceedings in Operation Tidsworth. Five Defendants were convicted and jailed at Southwark Crown Court in September 2018 of an investment fraud (boiler room scam) which fleeced investors of c£3m
Hedge Capital Investments Ltd v Sustainable Wealth Investments (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) EWHC 1674 (Ch) - Barry successfully acted for the joint liquidators resisting an application for pre-action disclosure against a company in liquidation where a restraint order and management receivership order were in place.
Alpha Sim Communications Ltd & Ors v Caz Distribution Services Limited & Ors  EWHC 207 Ch - Barry acted for defendants (a foreign corporation and its director and shareholder) in these Chancery Proceedings brought by the Liquidator. The case concerned a multi-million MTIC fraud which involved the import, repeated resale and the ultimate re-export of large quantities of high-value mobile phones. The trial took place in June 2013 and lasted several weeks. Judgment was given on 26 February 2014. Reported in Lawtel 6 March 2014.
Re Price (2013) QBD (Admin) (Ouseley J) 2013 EWHC ; 18/07/2013 Lawtel -Registration of a property in France in the names of his children pursuant to a deed of gift, which the English court held was fabricated, was not a reason to vary restraint and management receivership orders to exclude the property.
DCD Factors PLC and another v Ramada Trading Ltd and others  EWHC 1277 (QB) - represented defendants in a multimillion civil fraud claim. The court held it was fair to allow a defendant a release of monies that had been subject to a freezing injunction.
Windsor & Hare v CPS  EWCA (Crim)143 - (instructed as a leader in the Court of Appeal only).
Brandon Barnes v Eastenders Plc & CPS  EWHC 4 April 2012 - (instructed by the former Receiver). Decision of Underhill J as to recoverability of receivership costs.
SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc  EWCA Crim 1443;  1 All ER 586 - (led by Andrew Mitchell QC) – The Court of Appeal decided that the forfeiture regime is more stringent under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Independent Trustee Services Limited v GP Noble Trustees Limited & Others  EWHC 161 (Ch) - Acted for the SFO who had obtained a Restraint Order against funds in Switzerland. Application to claim legal costs and funding for a corporate venture in Thailand in Chancery Proceedings refused.
C  EWHC 380 (Admin) – Acted for SFO. Application for COI refused.
Choudhury - Acting successfully in highly contentious bankruptcy proceedings for the Trustee in Bankruptcy in TUV claims against a convicted defendant subject to confiscation proceedings. Claims settled.
Nutting & Others (as Trustees in Bankruptcy of the estate of Jonathan Dean France) v Jonathan Dean France  EWHC 2123 (Ch) 16 July 2014 - Acted for the Bankrupt who sought to resist the application by the Trustees to discharge an undertaking provided by the Trustees to the Court on a Search & Seizure Order under S 365 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Re J  EWCH 3382 (Admin) - Acted for the court appointed management receiver in obtaining an order for the sale of the defendant’s substantial mansion.
RCPO v Briggs-Price EWCA (Civ) 568 – Acted for Receiver in HC and CA. Application for legal costs under the CJA granted.
Re H & J  EWHC 1297 (Admin) - Resisting a defendant’s application for a Certificate of Inadequacy under the DTA.
Re Telli  EWHC 2233 (Admin);  EWCA Civ 1385 – Led in HC and CA. Application for a COI refused where hidden assets figure was c£2m.
Barnes v Gilmartin Associates NLP 29.07.98 EAT - Unfair dismissal redundancy-requirement for part-time work displaced by requirement for full-time worker-what constituted work of a particular kind.
Emery v UCB Bank Plc 15.05.97 CA7 - Successful appeal against strike out order resulting in the reinstatement of the claim concerning the misconduct of a receivership of a nursing home. Instructed in CA only.
National Bank of Abu Dhabi v Mohammed & Others NLP 21.03.97 CA - Appeal from deputy judge of the Chancery Division. Undue influence alleged by wife of debtor. Represented the Bank in successfully dismissing the claims/the appeal.
Ord v Belhaven Pubs Limited NLP 13.02.98 CA - Appeal from Judge in Chambers. Judge wrong to substitute the Defendant following the commercial re-structuring of the Belhaven group of companies. Plaintiff not entitled to lift the corporate veil so as to permit substitution.
Timothy John Hargreaves (Trustee in Bankruptcy of Salt) v Salt & Hill  EWHC 3549 Fam - Claim by Trustee re alleged sale of Spanish property at an undervalue/claim by spouse to set aside Spanish property sale.
Treadwell v Dawkins TLR/NLP 24.05.00 QBD - Company Director held personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation as to the availability of finance for building development.
Nikitin & Others v Richards Butler LLP and Others  EWHC 173 (QB) - Acted for the fourth respondent. The court dismissed the applicants' applications for Norwich Pharmacal relief and pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPR31.16, SI1998-3132, against private investigators and solicitors who were alleged to have instructed those investigators in connection with a Commercial Court action (Fiona Trust Holding Corp v Privalov) to which the applicants were defendants. Norwich Pharmacal relief was not intended to enable a victim of unlawful conduct to fine tune a pleading or to identify every person who might have committed an unlawful act.
Professional Qualifications and Appointments
Counsel to the Serious Fraud Office (A panel)
London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association
R3: Association of Business Recovery Professionals