“Barry is an extremely talented counsel who is unflappable in his approach to cases. With excellent written work and equally exceptional oral advocacy he wins over tribunals.”

“Barry's written work is of an exceptional high quality and he never fails to impress in his oral advocacy. A hugely talented counsel, who has an admirable reputation in the fields that he practices in and is thoroughly pragmatic in his approach. Excels in cross border and challenging cases.“

“A POCA veteran. Exceptionally thorough; dedicated to achieving results; very supportive; covers every angle and leaves nothing to chance; superb communicator; clients always impressed.“

"Knows how to command a room and is someone whose knowledge of asset forfeiture work is immense." "Has a fine understanding of POCA and is commercial in his approach as well." "He always impresses in POCA cases, whether acting for the prosecution or the defence."

Legal 500 2020-23

"Barry is an exceptional figure in the POCA world, who both acts for enforcement agencies and defends those involved in complex proceedings."

"Very knowledgeable, authoritative and pragmatic, he delivers complex advice in a clear and digestible way."

“Really good when it comes to unexplained wealth orders, account forfeiture and confiscation.” “He’s no-nonsense and a favourite of receivers.”

“He possesses a great knowledge of the law and procedure when it comes to big-time litigation.”

“A barrister with a calm nature who excels at tricky arguments.” 

Chambers & Partners 2020-23

"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."

“A barrister with a calm nature who excels at tricky arguments.” 

‘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."

"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."

“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.”

"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 2014-2016

Barry Stancombe

1983

Legal 500 2024 Ranked Tier 1, Leading Juniors

‘Excellent technical knowledge combined with being very user-friendly. A pleasure to work with.'

Chambers & Partners 2024 Band 1

"Barry Stancombe possesses incredible writing skills and is a real force of nature. He gets on top of the facts in a case quickly and leaves no stone unturned, demonstrating a passion for the case he's working on. I have learnt from him in how he drafts and presents in court."

"One of the best technical lawyers in the field. He's a pleasure to work with and a very good advocate."

Barry 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.

He advises on all aspects of proceeds of crime, asset forfeiture and in particular in cases where there is a cross over with insolvency proceedings.

Barry’s practice also encompasses the complementary areas of commercial litigation, civil fraud and insolvency.

He advises corporations, trusts, banks, IPs and private individuals on these specialist areas of law.

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 reported receivership cases.

Barry has been instructed by the main prosecution agencies for many years including the SFO and FCA. 

Barry acted for the SFO in obtaining the SFO’s first property freezing order (in 2014) in the 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/ and the SFO’s first account forfeiture order in 2019. He receives regular instructions by defendants in complex civil recovery cases.

Barry has been recommended in the POCA and Asset Forfeiture Sections of the Legal 500 and Chambers UK since first publications.

Appointed to the Serious Fraud Office POCA Panel of Counsel - Panel A. A member of the Proceeds of Crime Lawyers' Association, the Fraud Lawyers' Association, the London Common Law & Commercial Bar Association and R3.

Current and recent cases 2020-2023:

Microsoft Corporation v Matthew Anness Chancery Division Intellectual Property, 12 July 2023 - Barry was initially instructed to seek a variation of a Freezing Order to allow D to sell a property for c£2m. D had been made bankrupt following the making of a Settlement Order with C. Following Barry’s advice and drafting, investigations with the TIB and negotiations with C’s Solicitors, the Freezing Order was discharged by way of a Consent Order.  

R v Saghir Afzal Southwark Crown Court, 17 June 2023 - Barry acted for the SFO and the Enforcement Receiver, Matthew Hammond of PWC in a novel joint application dealing with land subject to escheat - its acquisition being partly funded by a tainted gift from D. The court (HH J Milne KC) approved an order for the disposal of the land by the Crown Estate with an equal division of the proceeds of sale between the ER and the Crown Estate. The order avoided the very costly need for the restoration of a foreign company in Gibraltar and then a vesting order in this jurisdiction.

R v Gopee  - Since March 2022 Barry has acted for the Enforcement Receiver (Barry previously acted for the Management Receiver) with an outstanding confiscation order of c£6m. There have been numerous applications and transactional issues involving the realisation of receivership assets, extending the receiver’s powers, with applications for permission to appeal still to be heard in the CACD from D and various companies.

R v Arif Patel & Ors  - Barry continues to act for the MR in these VAT/Tax fraud criminal proceedings with a loss valued at plus £70m. A trial commenced in Chester Crown Court in November 2022 and recently concluded in April 2023 with D being convicted in his absence of all counts on the Indictment. A confiscation timetable will be fixed at the sentencing hearing.  The receivership assets (being mainly commercial property in the UK) are valued in excess of £100m. 50% of these properties were held by BVI companies which had been struck off. Recent litigation work has involved getting the receivership order recognised in the BVI, permitting the restoration of these BVI companies, and the development of receivership assets with planning permissions to improve the value of the receivership assets.

R v Ravjani & the Ravjani Pension Scheme - In early 2023 Barry was instructed by Dentons to act for the enforcement receiver to realise property worth c£2m owned by the Ravjani Pension Scheme.

HMRC v X - Account freezing proceedings in the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court January 2023. Barry’s clients were the Joint Liquidators of the Company. HMRC were investigating an R&D Tax Credit fraud by A. AFO applications withdrawn further to representations.

R v James Stunt – Continuing to act for the Trustees in Bankruptcy of James Stunt in relation to the CPS criminal proceedings.

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Co Ltd (IN Liquidation) v CGrowth Limited & Ors [2022] EWHC 641 (Ch) - Successfully acted for a defendant company in an application by a claimant for summary judgment on a claim of bribery against 4 defendants arising on defences pleaded as part of a substantial pension fraud claim. Also obtained order by defendant to withdraw admissions

R v RDS - Successfully acted for Liquidator in recovering the Company’s assets subject to S10A proceedings (Leeds CC 31 March 2022)

FCA v Nascimento & others – Southwark Crown Court before HH J Hehir, June 2021. Lead Counsel instructed by the FCA in confiscation proceedings in connected boiler room and fraud cases. After a two week contested hearing a confiscation order of c£1m was made against the main defendant.   

R v Phagura – Local Authority prosecution. Representing a private landlord in confiscation proceedings following conviction for planning breaches. Hearing February 2021

SFO v Saghir Afzal & Others - 23 December 2020 before HH J Beddoe at Southwark Crown Court. Barry acts for both the SFO and the Enforcement Receiver in these enforcement proceedings. An ERO was varied to add further assets of the D.

Bartlett v Somaia 1 December 2020, HC [2020] 12 WLUK 11; Barry acted for the court appointed Receiver. The court ordered the discharge of an enforcement receiver and a contingency sum of £10,000 to cover any costs or expenses incurred after her discharge.

R (Hunter Worldwide Premium Sourcing Limited) v Gerrard Francis Lawless. Barry was instructed in both the civil and in the confiscation proceedings in this private prosecution. The confiscation proceedings concluded on 23 November 2020 at St Alban’s Crown Court with an confiscation order granted in the sum of c£340k.

CPS v X – represented the main suspect in restraint proceedings alleging a £7m fraud involving 22 individuals and organised crime. Contempt hearing alleging serious breaches of the restraint order over several years. In addition, there was a successful application to discharge the pre-charge restraint order. The discharge order was granted but suspended for two months with the CPS required to bring a charging decision before the expiration of that suspension period. November 2020.

FCA v Fabiana Abdel-Malek - Barry was lead Counsel in these confiscation proceedings concluded in July 2020 involving insider dealing. 

FCA v Gopee - Barry successfully acted for the Official Receiver and Liquidator of various restrained companies in seeking a variation of the defendant’s restraint order to sell properties and recover direct and indirect costs of realisation etc incurred exercising his powers under the Insolvency Act 1986. HH J Beddoe ordered that S. 426 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was no bar to the relief granted - Instructing Solicitors: TLT LLP 7 May 2020.

CPS v P & FL - acting for the Management Receiver in respect of a c£100m UK property portfolio. Further powers were grated to the MR to deal with the repercussions of Covid in relation to this commercial property portfolio based in the North West of England. Liverpool CC April 2020.

R – Craig Brookes & others. Successfully acted for the Liquidator of Bric Global Limited in obtaining the release of c£300k in cash forfeiture proceedings brought by the Met. March 2020

X v X - Barry successfully advised a defendant in a contract dispute involving an alleged introduction fee due to the Claimant in relation to an IT business. Issues of bribery and conflict of interests were involved. In February 2020, the Judge however found on a preliminary issue that the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden that a contract had been concluded as contended by him.

NCA v Nuttall & Others [2019] EWHC 10 (QB); [2019] 1 WLUK 3; Barry acted for the successful defendant company in setting aside a Recovery Order obtained by the NCA on a summary judgment application. Judgment January 2020.

And Generally:

SFO v NA. Barry acted for the SFO in its first Account Forfeiture Order obtained on 15 March 2019. This is believed to be one of the largest seizures of its kind in the UK and is the SFO’s first use of this enforcement tool, brought in under new powers from the 2017 Criminal Finances Act. See: https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2019/03/15/sfo-nets-1-52m-from-convicted-birmingham-fraudster/.

H & H v A & others - 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); acting for the Official Receiver in various cases where there was a conflict between confiscation and insolvency; and representing the former Managing Director (Airlines) of Rolls-Royce in relation to the SFO’s now abandoned criminal investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption.

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.

Hedge Capital Investments Ltd v Sustainable Wealth Investments (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation)[2015] 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 [2014] 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 [2859]; 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 [2012] 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 [2011] EWCA (Crim)143 - (instructed as a leader in the Court of Appeal only).

Brandon Barnes v Eastenders Plc & CPS [2012] EWHC 4 April 2012 - (instructed by the former Receiver). Decision of Underhill J as to recoverability of receivership costs.

SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc [2008] EWCA Crim 1443; [2009] 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 [2009] 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 [2009] EWHC 380 (Admin) – Acted for SFO. Application for COI refused.

Nutting & Others (as Trustees in Bankruptcy of the estate of Jonathan Dean France) v Jonathan Dean France [2014] 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 [2006] 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 [2005] EWHC 1297 (Admin) - Resisting a defendant’s application for a Certificate of Inadequacy under the DTA.

Re Telli [2006] EWHC 2233 (Admin); [2007] 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 [2010] 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 [2007] 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.

International work has included acting for the Attorney General of the Turks & Caicos Islands.

News and Current Awareness