Civil Law and UAE Asset Tracing in Civil Fraud Cases

1. Introduction

Asset tracing is the legal process of identifying, following and recovering money or property that has been wrongfully obtained, transferred, concealed, converted or dissipated.

In a UAE civil-fraud case, tracing becomes particularly important where the defendant has:

• transferred fraud proceeds to another bank account;
• moved money through several companies;
• purchased real estate with the proceeds;
• transferred assets to relatives or related companies;
• converted cash into shares or investments;
• mixed the proceeds with legitimate funds;
• transferred property outside the UAE;
• concealed the ultimate beneficial owner; or
• attempted to dissipate assets before judgment.

The modern UAE legal framework combines substantive civil remedies, creditor-protection rules, precautionary attachment, disclosure mechanisms and court-supervised enforcement. The new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 on Civil Transactions is now in force and contains specific provisions protecting creditors against dispositions that prejudice their rights.

The DIFC is especially significant for sophisticated asset-tracing litigation because its courts have developed substantial jurisprudence concerning freezing orders, proprietary injunctions, disclosure, tracing, knowing receipt, constructive trusts and fraud.

2. What Is Asset Tracing?

Asset tracing is different from simply obtaining a money judgment.

Suppose A fraudulently obtains AED 10 million from B.

A then:

1. transfers AED 4 million to Company X;
2. transfers AED 2 million to a personal account;
3. uses AED 2 million to purchase property;
4. transfers AED 1 million to a relative;
5. spends AED 1 million.

A simple damages claim asks:

How much does A owe B?

Asset tracing asks:

Where did B's AED 10 million go, what assets represent it now, and who currently possesses or controls those assets?

This distinction is critical because recovery may be possible against traceable property or its proceeds, rather than merely against the original fraudster personally.

3. Asset Tracing and Civil Fraud

Civil fraud can involve:

• fraudulent misrepresentation;
• deceit;
• fraudulent inducement;
• fraudulent transfer;
• misappropriation;
• breach of fiduciary duty;
• dishonest assistance;
• knowing receipt;
• unjust enrichment;
• conspiracy;
• concealment of assets.

The claimant's objective is normally twofold:

First

Establish liability for the fraud.

Second

Prevent the fraudster from making the judgment worthless by moving or hiding assets.

Therefore, effective asset tracing often requires urgent interim relief before the final judgment.

4. Current UAE Civil-Law Framework

The UAE's new Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, came into force on 1 June 2026 and replaced the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

One particularly important development is the express treatment of dispositions that prejudice creditors.

Article 344

A creditor whose debt has become due may seek a declaration that a debtor's disposition is unenforceable against the creditor where the disposition diminishes the debtor's rights, increases obligations, or causes or aggravates insolvency, subject to the statutory conditions.

The provision deals with:

• dispositions for consideration;
• gratuitous dispositions;
• subsequent transfers;
• knowledge of insolvency or fraud.

This is highly relevant to asset tracing because a fraudster may attempt to place assets beyond the creditor's reach through family members, companies or related parties.

5. Fraudulent or Prejudicial Transfers

Consider this example:

A owes B AED 20 million after committing fraud.
A transfers his Dubai villa to his brother for no consideration.
A then argues that he owns no assets.

The creditor may seek relief challenging the effectiveness of that disposition against the creditor.

Article 344 is therefore an important statutory mechanism for attacking transactions that undermine creditor recovery.

The provision does not mean that every transfer by a debtor is automatically fraudulent.

The court must examine:

• whether the debt exists;
• whether it is due;
• the nature of the disposition;
• consideration;
• insolvency;
• knowledge;
• timing;
• relationship between transferor and transferee;
• effect on the creditor.

6. Asset Tracing Versus Fraudulent-Transfer Relief

These concepts should be distinguished.

Asset tracing

Asks:

Where is the original property or its identifiable proceeds?

Fraudulent-transfer/non-enforceability claim

Asks:

Can the debtor's transaction be disregarded or declared ineffective against the creditor?

Freezing injunction

Asks:

How can the defendant be prevented from dissipating assets while the case is pending?

Proprietary injunction

Asks:

How can specifically identified property or its traceable proceeds be protected?

These remedies can operate together.

7. Precautionary Attachment

The UAE Civil Procedure Code provides mechanisms for precautionary attachment.

Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022, the Civil Procedure Code, contains the framework for attachments and execution.

Precautionary attachment is designed to preserve assets pending determination or enforcement of the claim.

It may be particularly appropriate where evidence indicates that:

• the debtor is concealing assets;
• assets are being transferred;
• the debtor may leave the jurisdiction;
• the claimant's recovery is at risk.

The statutory framework also recognises attachment over assets in the debtor's possession or, in appropriate circumstances, assets held by third parties.

8. Freezing Orders

In sophisticated fraud litigation, a freezing order can be more useful than simply suing for damages.

A freezing order can restrain a defendant from:

• removing assets from the jurisdiction;
• disposing of assets;
• transferring assets;
• diminishing their value.

The DIFC Courts' procedural rules expressly provide for freezing orders and orders requiring information about the location of relevant assets.

This combination is particularly powerful:

Freeze the assets + obtain disclosure + trace the money.

9. Disclosure Is the Key to Asset Tracing

A claimant cannot trace assets if the relevant information is hidden.

Therefore, courts may require a defendant to disclose:

• bank accounts;
• account balances;
• transfers;
• property;
• shares;
• investments;
• corporate interests;
• beneficial ownership;
• recipients of funds;
• onward transfers.

The DIFC framework expressly permits an order requiring information concerning the location and nature of property or assets relevant to a freezing application.

This is particularly important in fraud cases because the wrongdoer is often the person who knows where the money went.

10. Case Law

Case 1 — Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & FAB Securities LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 030

This is one of the most important UAE/DIFC asset-tracing authorities.

Larmag alleged that bonds had been obtained through fraudulent conduct and sought proprietary relief against assets held by others.

The DIFC Court concluded that there was a serious issue to be tried concerning claims including:

• fraud;
• deceit;
• unjust enrichment;
• constructive trust.

The Court considered the possibility of proprietary relief against persons holding property derived from the alleged wrongdoing.

Principle

A fraud claim can generate proprietary consequences where the claimant can establish an appropriate proprietary interest in the property or its proceeds.

The case demonstrates that asset tracing can extend beyond the original fraudster to property held by third parties.

11. Case 2 — Cayan Assets Investments LLC v EFS Facilities Management Ltd & Others [2025] DIFC CFI 082/2024

This is a particularly important modern tracing authority.

The case concerned allegedly wrongly transferred shares and whether the claimant could establish a proprietary interest in them.

The Court considered:

• constructive trust;
• knowing receipt;
• dishonest assistance;
• unjust enrichment;
• tracing;
• mixed assets.

The Court recognised that tracing can operate even where assets have been mixed and are not maintained in a separately identifiable account.

Principle

Mixing does not necessarily destroy tracing.

Where trust or proprietary property is mixed with other assets, legal tracing principles may allow the claimant to identify the remaining property or proceeds.

This is extremely important in fraud cases because fraudsters frequently mix stolen money with legitimate funds.

12. Case 3 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

This is one of the most significant recent UAE asset-tracing decisions.

The dispute concerned approximately USD 456 million transferred through an investment structure.

The DIFC Court granted:

• a proprietary injunction;
• a worldwide freezing injunction;
• ancillary disclosure orders.

The proprietary injunction restrained dealings with the relevant funds and traceable proceeds. The freezing order protected assets up to the relevant amount.

The Court considered claims involving:

• constructive trusteeship;
• knowing receipt;
• fraud;
• tracing;
• proprietary remedies.

The Court explained the elements of knowing receipt, including receipt of property or its traceable proceeds and knowledge sufficient to make retention unconscionable.

Principle

Asset tracing can be used to follow fraud proceeds through subsequent transactions and into substitute assets.

The case also demonstrates that proprietary relief is conceptually different from an ordinary damages claim.

13. Case 4 — Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd v Sassoon & Others [2024] DIFC CFI 009/2023

This case involved allegations including:

• fraudulent breaches of duty;
• dishonest assistance;
• knowing receipt;
• unlawful conspiracy;
• fraudulent trading;
• transactions in fraud of creditors;
• misfeasance.

The DIFC Court considered whether these forms of liability were recognised within the DIFC legal framework.

The Court explained the role of DIFC Trust Law and the common law and equitable principles that supplement it.

Principle

Asset recovery in sophisticated fraud cases is not restricted to a simple contractual debt claim.

Depending upon the applicable DIFC legal framework, claims can include:

• proprietary remedies;
• knowing receipt;
• dishonest assistance;
• constructive trusteeship;
• unjust enrichment.

This substantially expands the possible routes to recovery.

14. Case 5 — Skatteforvaltningen v FFA Private Bank (Dubai) Ltd [2024] DIFC CFI 004

This is one of the clearest examples of information-based asset tracing.

The claimant alleged that very large sums had been received by bank accounts as proceeds of fraud.

The claimant did not initially know:

• who ultimately received the money;
• where the funds went;
• whether the money remained in bank accounts;
• whether the funds had been invested elsewhere.

The DIFC Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal/Bankers Trust-type disclosure order requiring information and documents identifying recipients and further dealings with the funds.

Principle

Where a claimant has been the victim of fraud but does not know the identity or location of the proceeds, the court can provide information-based relief capable of enabling the claimant to identify:

• recipients;
• accounts;
• subsequent transfers;
• traceable assets.

This is a fundamental part of modern asset tracing.

15. Case 6 — Carmon Reestrutura-engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais (SU) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered freezing relief concerning bank accounts and traceable proceeds.

The freezing order restrained dealings with funds held in specified accounts and traceable proceeds and also required information concerning the relevant accounts.

The case demonstrates the close relationship between:

freezing relief → disclosure → tracing → enforcement.

Principle

An effective freezing order can preserve not merely the original bank balance but also qualifying proceeds into which the relevant property has been transferred.

16. Case 7 — Trafigura Pte Ltd & Trafigura India Pvt Ltd v Prateek Gupta & Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001 / CFI 040/2025

This is an important modern example involving alleged large-scale fraud and asset dissipation.

The proceedings involved:

• fraud allegations;
• worldwide freezing orders;
• UAE-wide relief;
• disclosure;
• assets held by a person who was not originally a defendant to the substantive foreign proceedings;
• potential enforcement against assets beneficially connected to the primary wrongdoer.

The DIFC Court of Appeal recognised the breadth of the court's incidental powers to grant freezing relief, while the later proceedings dealt with asset disclosure and continued protection of assets.

Principle

Asset tracing may require courts to look beyond the person formally accused of fraud and investigate whether assets held by another person are in substance connected with the judgment debtor or fraudster.

This is closely related to the Chabra-type jurisdiction against third parties who may hold assets available for enforcement.

17. Case 8 — VTB Bank PJSC v Kuanyshev & Others [2026] DIFC CFI 121/2025

This recent case provides an exceptionally clear explanation of why disclosure is crucial in fraud cases.

The DIFC Court recognised that freezing-order information is particularly important where:

• fraud is alleged;
• the wrongdoer may have dissipated assets;
• little documentary evidence is available;
• the claimant needs information to reconstruct the transactions.

The Court emphasised the importance of requiring asset information promptly because delay can undermine the effectiveness of freezing relief.

Principle

Asset tracing is often an information problem before it becomes a legal problem.

The court's disclosure powers therefore become an essential component of fraud recovery.

18. Case 9 — Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling [2026] DIFC CFI 117/2025

The case concerned allegations of:

• fraud;
• extortion;
• unjust enrichment;
• breach of contract;

and a freezing order over UAE assets.

The Court found a well-arguable case of wrongdoing and continued the injunction after considering the risk that assets might be removed from the UAE.

Principle

Where the evidence indicates a real risk that assets may be removed or dissipated, freezing relief can preserve the practical value of a future judgment.

19. Tracing Through Bank Accounts

Bank accounts are usually the first place where tracing begins.

Suppose:

Fraudster → Account A → Account B → Company C → Property D

The claimant's task is to establish the evidential chain.

Useful evidence may include:

• bank statements;
• SWIFT messages;
• payment instructions;
• transaction references;
• invoices;
• corporate records;
• emails;
• cryptocurrency records;
• property records;
• share registers;
• loan agreements;
• accounting records.

The objective is to demonstrate that:

Asset D represents, in whole or part, the proceeds of the original fraud.

20. Tracing Mixed Funds

One of the most difficult situations arises when fraud proceeds are mixed with legitimate funds.

For example:

A has AED 1 million legitimately.

A receives AED 2 million through fraud.

A places AED 3 million into one account.

A then spends AED 1 million.

The claimant may attempt to establish what portion of the remaining balance represents the fraud proceeds.

The DIFC's recent Cayan jurisprudence confirms that mixing does not necessarily make tracing impossible.

21. Tracing Into Real Estate

A fraudster may convert money into:

• villas;
• apartments;
• commercial buildings;
• land;
• development projects.

The tracing strategy then moves from money to property.

For example:

AED 5 million fraud proceeds → bank account → payment to developer → apartment.

If the legal requirements for proprietary relief are established, the claimant may seek remedies directed toward the property or its proceeds rather than merely obtaining a personal judgment against the fraudster.

This is one reason why immediate investigation of property purchases following suspicious transfers is important.

22. Tracing Into Shares

Fraud proceeds can also be converted into:

• shares;
• securities;
• investment funds;
• company interests;
• partnership interests.

Cayan Assets Investments is especially relevant because the DIFC Court considered tracing into shares and the consequences of transfers involving related entities.

The claimant must establish a sufficient evidential connection between:

original property → transfer → substitute asset.

23. Tracing Through Companies

Companies frequently complicate fraud recovery.

A fraudster might use:

Fraudster → Company A → Company B → Company C → Asset

The existence of separate corporate entities does not automatically defeat every tracing or proprietary claim.

The court may examine:

• beneficial ownership;
• control;
• actual transfers;
• consideration;
• purpose of transactions;
• relationship between entities;
• knowledge;
• timing;
• whether the recipient was a bona fide purchaser.

But corporate ownership should not simply be disregarded without legal basis. A claimant must establish the particular legal doctrine supporting relief.

24. Knowing Receipt

Knowing receipt becomes relevant when a third party receives property derived from wrongdoing.

The basic questions include:

1. Was the property subject to a proprietary obligation?
2. Was it transferred improperly?
3. Did the defendant receive it?
4. Was the defendant's receipt for its own benefit?
5. Did the defendant have sufficient knowledge?
6. Is retention of the property legally unconscionable?

The Techteryx litigation provides a detailed modern discussion of these requirements.

25. Dishonest Assistance

A third party may not personally receive the stolen money but may assist the fraud.

For example:

Fraudster transfers funds through a company controlled by an associate.

The associate may not ultimately possess the money but may have knowingly assisted the fraudulent scheme.

The DIFC Court in Bank Sarasin-Alpen recognised the relevance of dishonest-assistance and knowing-receipt claims within the DIFC's trust/equitable framework.

26. Constructive Trust

A constructive trust can be particularly powerful because it treats certain property as being held for the benefit of the person entitled to it.

In Larmag and Techteryx, constructive-trust reasoning formed part of the proprietary analysis.

The practical importance is significant:

A claimant is not merely saying:

"The defendant owes me money."

The claimant may instead say:

"This particular property represents my money and should be preserved and returned."

That distinction can materially affect remedies.

27. Proprietary Injunction

A proprietary injunction protects property in which the claimant asserts a proprietary interest.

It may restrain:

• sale;
• transfer;
• disposal;
• conversion;
• dealing with the asset.

Techteryx provides a strong example: the DIFC Court granted proprietary relief covering the relevant funds and traceable proceeds.

28. Worldwide Freezing Injunction

A worldwide freezing order is different.

It generally prevents the defendant from disposing of assets up to a specified value, wherever those assets may be located, subject to the precise terms of the order.

In Techteryx, the DIFC Court granted a worldwide freezing order alongside proprietary relief.

The purpose is not necessarily to declare that every asset belongs to the claimant.

Instead, it prevents the defendant from making the eventual judgment ineffective.

29. Disclosure Order

A disclosure order may require the defendant to identify:

• bank accounts;
• properties;
• shares;
• investments;
• transfers;
• beneficial interests;
• recipients;
• current location of assets.

In VTB Bank, the Court emphasised the importance of prompt information following a freezing order.

In Skatteforvaltningen, information from a bank was sought specifically to identify recipients and trace the movement of suspected fraud proceeds.

30. Third-Party Banks and Asset Tracing

Banks may become involved even though they are not accused of fraud.

For example:

Fraudster → Bank A → Bank B → investment account

A claimant may require information from banks concerning:

• account holder;
• transaction history;
• onward payments;
• account closure;
• destination of funds.

Skatteforvaltningen is particularly significant because the bank was approached for information needed to identify unknown recipients and trace suspected fraud proceeds.

31. Cryptoassets and Digital Assets

Modern UAE asset tracing increasingly involves:

• cryptocurrency;
• stablecoins;
• digital wallets;
• tokenised assets;
• exchanges;
• blockchain transactions.

The fundamental tracing question remains:

Can the claimant establish a legally sufficient connection between the original property and the digital asset or its proceeds?

Digital assets may actually provide useful evidence because blockchain transactions create a permanent transaction history, although identifying the real-world person controlling a wallet can be difficult.

The DIFC's Digital Economy Court has already dealt with sophisticated proprietary and tracing issues in Techteryx.

32. Asset Dissipation

Asset dissipation occurs where a defendant intentionally or improperly reduces the assets available for judgment.

Examples include:

• transferring money to relatives;
• selling property below market value;
• transferring funds offshore;
• purchasing assets in another person's name;
• paying fictitious debts;
• creating sham loans;
• moving funds between related companies.

A freezing order is particularly valuable when there is evidence of a real risk of dissipation.

Quortia demonstrates judicial concern with the risk that assets may be removed from the UAE before judgment.

33. Fraudulent Transfers to Relatives

Suppose:

Fraudster transfers AED 15 million to spouse.

The claimant should not simply assume that the spouse is liable.

The investigation should determine:

• Was consideration paid?
• When did the transfer occur?
• Was there an existing debt?
• Was the recipient aware of the fraud?
• Was the transfer designed to defeat creditors?
• Does the asset represent traceable proceeds?
• Who exercises beneficial control?

The new Civil Transactions Law's creditor-protection provisions can become particularly important where dispositions diminish the debtor's rights or aggravate insolvency.

34. Fraudulent Transfers to Companies

The same analysis applies where assets are transferred to a company.

The court may examine:

• ownership;
• directors;
• shareholders;
• beneficial ownership;
• consideration;
• accounting records;
• intercompany loans;
• timing;
• common control;
• relationship between the companies.

A company should not automatically be treated as an alter ego merely because it is controlled by the defendant. The claimant must identify the legal basis for recovery against the company.

35. Evidentiary Requirements

Successful asset tracing depends heavily on evidence.

Important evidence includes:

Banking evidence

• statements;
• payment instructions;
• beneficiary information;
• transaction dates.

Corporate evidence

• shareholder registers;
• UBO information;
• directors;
• corporate resolutions.

Property evidence

• title records;
• purchase agreements;
• mortgages;
• developer records.

Digital evidence

• emails;
• blockchain records;
• wallet addresses;
• exchange records;
• electronic communications.

Accounting evidence

• ledgers;
• invoices;
• intercompany transfers;
• financial statements.

36. Burden and Standard of Proof

A claimant must establish the legal basis for the relief sought.

The evidential standard varies according to the procedural stage and remedy.

For urgent interim relief, the court may consider whether there is a sufficiently strong or well-arguable case and whether there is a real risk that assets will be dissipated.

The DIFC cases demonstrate this approach.

For example, Quortia involved the Court finding at least a well-arguable case of fraud-related wrongdoing and a sufficient risk of asset removal to continue the injunction.

Final proprietary relief requires the claimant to establish the substantive legal and factual elements of its claim.

37. Asset Tracing Flowchart

A typical UAE civil-fraud case may proceed as follows:

Fraud discovered

↓

Identify original payment/property

↓

Obtain banking/corporate evidence

↓

Identify first recipient

↓

Trace onward transfers

↓

Identify substitute assets

↓

Seek freezing/proprietary relief

↓

Seek disclosure

↓

Identify beneficial ownership

↓

Challenge fraudulent/prejudicial transfers

↓

Obtain judgment

↓

Enforce against identified assets

38. Difference Between DIFC and Onshore UAE Approach

39. Major Legal Principles From the Cases

The UAE/DIFC authorities establish several important principles.

1. Fraud does not end with a damages claim

A claimant can potentially pursue proprietary remedies and trace assets.

2. The court can protect traceable proceeds

Techteryx illustrates protection extending to traceable proceeds.

3. Mixing does not necessarily defeat tracing

Cayan demonstrates that tracing can continue into mixed assets.

4. Information is central

Skatteforvaltningen and VTB Bank demonstrate the importance of disclosure in locating hidden assets.

5. Freezing and tracing work together

A freezing order prevents dissipation while disclosure enables tracing.

6. Third parties can become relevant

Banks, companies, nominees and recipients may possess information or assets connected with the fraud.

7. Proprietary claims are different from personal claims

A proprietary claim concerns the asset itself or its traceable proceeds.

8. Creditor protection extends to prejudicial dispositions

The new Civil Transactions Law provides a specific mechanism for challenging certain dispositions that prejudice creditors.

40. Practical Strategy for a Civil-Fraud Asset-Tracing Claim

A claimant should generally consider the following sequence.

Stage 1 — Preserve evidence

Immediately preserve:

• emails;
• bank records;
• contracts;
• invoices;
• electronic communications;
• blockchain information.

Stage 2 — Establish the original transaction

Identify exactly:

• amount;
• date;
• sender;
• recipient;
• account;
• purpose.

Stage 3 — Trace the first transfer

Determine where the money went immediately afterwards.

Stage 4 — Follow onward transfers

Create a transaction map.

Stage 5 — Identify substitute property

Look for:

• real estate;
• shares;
• vehicles;
• investments;
• digital assets;
• company interests.

Stage 6 — Seek urgent relief

Where justified, seek:

• freezing order;
• proprietary injunction;
• precautionary attachment;
• disclosure order.

Stage 7 — Investigate third parties

Determine whether:

• relatives;
• companies;
• nominees;
• banks;
• business partners

received or control the assets.

Stage 8 — Bring substantive claims

Potential claims may include:

• fraud;
• deceit;
• unjust enrichment;
• breach of duty;
• knowing receipt;
• dishonest assistance;
• proprietary claims.

Stage 9 — Challenge prejudicial transfers

Use applicable creditor-protection mechanisms.

Stage 10 — Enforce

Once judgment is obtained, enforce against the identified assets.

41. Conclusion

Asset tracing in UAE civil fraud cases is increasingly sophisticated and powerful. The objective is not simply to obtain a judgment saying that the fraudster owes money. The objective is to identify where the fraud proceeds went and preserve or recover the property representing those proceeds.

The modern UAE framework combines:

fraud liability + creditor protection + precautionary attachment + disclosure + freezing relief + proprietary remedies + enforcement.

The new Civil Transactions Law is particularly important for transactions that prejudice creditors, including certain gratuitous or insolvency-related dispositions.

DIFC jurisprudence provides especially developed examples. Larmag demonstrates proprietary claims arising from fraud; Cayan illustrates tracing through mixed assets; Techteryx demonstrates proprietary injunctions, freezing orders and traceable proceeds; Skatteforvaltningen shows the importance of bank disclosure; Carmon illustrates freezing protection over funds and traceable proceeds; and VTB Bank highlights the importance of rapid disclosure in fraud investigations.

The central principle can therefore be stated simply:

A successful UAE civil-fraud claim should, where legally justified, follow the money—not merely follow the defendant.

Where the evidence establishes a sufficient proprietary connection, the law can potentially reach the original funds, their traceable proceeds, substitute assets, and in appropriate cases assets held by third parties, while freezing and disclosure orders can prevent the fraudster from defeating the eventual judgment.