Civil Law and UAE Asset Tracing in Multi-Jurisdiction Fraud Cases

1. Introduction

Asset tracing is the process of identifying, locating, following and ultimately recovering money or property that has been obtained through fraud, misappropriation, corruption, money laundering or another wrongful act.

In a multi-jurisdiction fraud, the problem becomes considerably more complicated because the original victim may be in one country, the fraudster in another, the bank account in a third, and the proceeds may subsequently be transferred through several countries, companies, cryptocurrencies, securities or real estate investments.

The UAE is particularly important in such disputes because it is a major international financial, commercial and investment centre. The legal framework now combines:

• UAE civil law;
• civil-procedure and attachment mechanisms;
• anti-money-laundering legislation;
• criminal confiscation;
• banking and financial records;
• DIFC and ADGM common-law mechanisms;
• international judicial cooperation;
• recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and orders.

The current UAE Anti-Money Laundering framework is Federal Decree by Law No. 10 of 2025, which replaced the previous 2018 framework. It expressly provides mechanisms for identification, tracing, seizure, freezing, confiscation and international cooperation.

2. Meaning of Asset Tracing

Asset tracing is different from simply obtaining a monetary judgment.

Debt recovery

A claimant says:

“The defendant owes me AED 20 million.”

Asset tracing

The claimant says:

“AED 20 million was fraudulently taken from me, transferred to Company A, then to Bank Account B, then invested in property or transferred to another person. I want to identify and recover the specific proceeds or their traceable substitutes.”

Thus, tracing focuses on the identity, movement and destination of assets.

3. Why Multi-Jurisdiction Fraud Is Difficult

A typical fraud may look like:

Victim in Country A

↓

Fraudster in Country B

↓

UAE company

↓

UAE bank

↓

Swiss bank

↓

British Virgin Islands company

↓

Dubai real estate

↓

Cryptocurrency wallet

↓

Final recipient

The victim therefore needs cooperation from several legal systems.

A successful strategy normally requires:

1. immediate preservation of evidence;
2. identification of bank accounts;
3. identification of beneficial owners;
4. tracing transfers;
5. freezing/attachment;
6. obtaining third-party information;
7. establishing the fraudulent chain;
8. obtaining judgment or other recovery order;
9. enforcing against the assets.

4. Current UAE Legal Framework

The most important current framework includes:

A. Civil Transactions Law

The new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, replaced the former Civil Transactions Law.

It contains rules concerning:

• fraud/deceit;
• wrongful conduct;
• compensation;
• restitution;
• unjust enrichment/misappropriation-related claims.

B. Civil Procedure

UAE procedural law provides mechanisms for precautionary attachment, allowing assets to be secured pending determination or enforcement of a claim.

C. AML Law

Federal Decree by Law No. 10 of 2025 contains a dedicated chapter on international cooperation and asset recovery.

Article 21 permits cooperation concerning:

• identification;
• tracing;
• evaluation;
• seizure;
• freezing;
• confiscation;
• production of financial records;
• witness evidence;
• electronic information;
• surrender and recovery of criminal property. 

D. Executive Regulations

Cabinet Resolution No. 134 of 2025 provides for financial investigations directed at identifying and tracing criminal property and determining where the property has been transferred.

5. Civil Recovery Versus Criminal Asset Recovery

This distinction is essential.

Civil recovery

The victim seeks:

• damages;
• restitution;
• attachment;
• enforcement;
• recovery of property;
• contractual remedies.

Criminal recovery

The State investigates:

• fraud;
• money laundering;
• proceeds of crime;
• concealment;
• transfer of criminal property.

The criminal court may ultimately order confiscation.

The two processes can operate alongside each other, although procedural coordination is necessary.

6. UAE Criminal Asset Tracing

The 2025 AML legislation expressly contemplates:

identifying and tracing criminal property or equivalent-value funds.

Authorities may investigate:

• bank accounts;
• property;
• securities;
• corporate holdings;
• virtual assets;
• beneficial ownership;
• transfers;
• recipients;
• relationships between recipients and suspects.

The Executive Regulations specifically contemplate parallel financial investigations to determine the temporal and geographical scope of the crime, value of criminal property, acquisition method, recipients, relationships and source of funds.

7. Case Law 1 — UAE Federal Supreme Court, Penal Cassation No. 891/2022

This is a particularly important UAE money-laundering authority.

Principle

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that:

• money laundering is an independent offence;
• the criminal court may assess whether property represents proceeds of an unlawful activity;
• conviction for the predicate offence is not necessarily required to establish the unlawful source of the proceeds under the then-applicable AML law;
• the court has broad authority to assess the evidence.

The case concerned unlawful financial-transfer/exchange activity and laundering of proceeds.

Relevance to asset tracing

The decision is important because asset tracing often requires proving the connection between money and the underlying unlawful activity.

2026 qualification

This case interpreted the 2018 AML legislation, not the current 2025 AML Law. It therefore remains an important historical authority but must be applied alongside the new legislation.

8. Case Law 2 — UAE Federal Supreme Court, Penal Cassation No. 1189/2020

This case concerned prosecution under the UAE AML framework and the authority of the Public Prosecution.

Principle

The Federal Supreme Court treated the relevant procedural requirements governing prosecution as matters of public order.

Asset-tracing significance

Asset tracing frequently involves cooperation between:

• police;
• Public Prosecution;
• financial authorities;
• banks;
• investigators;
• courts.

The case demonstrates that procedural authority is not merely administrative. Defects in the legally required prosecution process can affect the validity of subsequent proceedings.

Qualification

This case also concerned the earlier AML regime and should therefore be used as a historical procedural authority.

9. Case Law 3 — UAE Federal Supreme Court, Penal Cassation No. 505/2010

This case is relevant to confiscation of property connected with criminal activity.

Principle

The Federal Supreme Court considered the relationship between:

• property used in a crime;
• confiscation;
• ownership; and
• third-party rights.

Importance

Asset tracing frequently ends with the question:

“Who owns the asset now?”

The fact that criminal proceeds have been transferred to another person does not necessarily prevent recovery or confiscation.

At the same time, UAE law protects bona fide third-party rights in appropriate circumstances.

10. Case Law 4 — UAE Federal Supreme Court, Penal Cassation Nos. 623, 631 and 632 of 2022

These cases concerned confiscation of items connected with criminal conduct, including electronic/computer-related property.

Principle

The UAE courts recognize the possibility of confiscating property or instruments connected with criminal conduct where statutory conditions are satisfied.

Asset-tracing relevance

Modern fraud frequently leaves digital evidence and digital instruments:

• computers;
• phones;
• electronic accounts;
• digital records;
• electronic wallets;
• transaction records.

Asset tracing therefore increasingly overlaps with digital evidence and cyber-investigation.

11. Case Law 5 — SKAT v FFA Private Bank (Dubai) Limited, DIFC CFI 004/2024

This is one of the most directly relevant UAE-region authorities for multi-jurisdiction asset tracing.

The case involved alleged fraudulent tax-scheme proceeds that had travelled internationally and eventually reached accounts associated with a DIFC private bank.

The Danish tax authority sought information identifying:

• recipients;
• accounts;
• onward transfers;
• dealings with the funds;
• ultimate beneficiaries.

The DIFC Court granted Norwich Pharmacal/Bankers Trust-type relief requiring disclosure of banking and portfolio information.

Major principle

The DIFC Court recognized that disclosure can be used not merely to identify a wrongdoer but also to:

identify the location of property which the claimant seeks to trace.

The court also accepted the utility of tracing electronic funds years after the original transfer because modern electronic records can make tracing possible.

Importance

This is extremely important for multi-jurisdiction fraud.

It shows how a UAE-based court can assist an international claimant where:

Foreign fraud → UAE bank → unknown recipient → unknown onward destination.

12. Case Law 6 — Oskar v Olindo, Onita and Oron, [2024] DIFC CA 009

This DIFC Court of Appeal decision concerned asset discovery for enforcement.

Principle

The DIFC Court adopted a purposive interpretation of its enforcement rules to facilitate discovery of assets and prevent judgment debtors from concealing property.

The court emphasized the function of the rules in enabling effective justice and asset tracing for enforcement.

Importance

The case demonstrates that asset tracing is not merely an ancillary procedural exercise.

It is part of the court's broader objective of making judgments effective in practice.

A judgment without the ability to discover hidden assets can be practically worthless.

13. Case Law 7 — Mohammed Zahid Aslam v SDI Capital Limited, DIFC CFI 084/2018

This DIFC enforcement decision involved an order requiring a judgment debtor's representative to provide information concerning:

• assets;
• liabilities;
• income;
• financial resources;
• documents relevant to enforcement.

The court used its examination and disclosure powers to assist enforcement.

Importance

This illustrates the difference between:

obtaining a judgment

and

discovering what the judgment debtor actually owns.

Asset disclosure can be essential where the debtor has complicated international corporate and financial structures.

14. Case Law 8 — Fletcher I LLC & Fletcher III LLC v Florance Logistic Solutions, DIFC ARB 002/2015

This case addressed enforcement and the significance of assets outside the immediate jurisdiction.

Principle

The DIFC Court recognized that the absence of assets within the jurisdiction does not necessarily make an enforcement process pointless.

An enforcement order can itself assist in tracing assets, including through examination and related procedures.

Importance

This is highly relevant to international fraud because assets frequently move after litigation begins.

The existence of no immediately identifiable UAE asset should therefore not necessarily terminate an asset-recovery strategy.

15. Case Law 9 — Naqid v Najam, DIFC ARB 004/2024

This case involved recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award and a freezing order restraining dealings with assets both within and outside the DIFC.

Importance

The case illustrates the interaction between:

• arbitration;
• judgment enforcement;
• asset preservation;
• freezing relief;
• cross-border asset protection.

It demonstrates why a claimant should consider preservation measures immediately after obtaining an enforceable award or judgment.

16. Case Law 10 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others, DIFC DEC 001/2025

This is a very significant modern fraud/asset-preservation development.

The proceedings involved allegations concerning very large transfers and included a proprietary injunction restraining dealings with cash and assets representing or constituting traceable proceeds.

The case demonstrates the growing role of DIFC courts in sophisticated international asset-recovery disputes involving:

• corporate structures;
• banks;
• allegedly fraudulent transfers;
• proprietary claims;
• traceable proceeds;
• preservation of assets.

The DIFC Digital Economy Court recorded the proprietary injunction concerning the transferred funds and traceable proceeds.

17. Case Law Summary

18. Onshore UAE Attachment

A major distinction must be made between onshore UAE courts and DIFC/ADGM common-law courts.

Onshore UAE procedure generally relies upon mechanisms such as precautionary attachment rather than the common-law freezing injunction model.

A claimant may seek attachment of identified assets where statutory requirements are satisfied.

Possible targets include:

• bank accounts;
• shares;
• real estate;
• movable property;
• receivables;
• other identifiable assets.

The objective is to prevent the defendant from defeating enforcement by disposing of assets.

19. DIFC/ADGM Difference

The DIFC and ADGM operate under separate common-law-based legal systems.

They may provide remedies resembling:

• freezing orders;
• proprietary injunctions;
• Norwich Pharmacal orders;
• Bankers Trust orders;
• disclosure orders;
• examination orders.

This makes the DIFC and ADGM particularly important in sophisticated international fraud cases.

However, jurisdiction must be established carefully.

A claimant cannot simply choose the DIFC because its remedies are attractive.

20. Norwich Pharmacal-Type Relief

The purpose of a Norwich Pharmacal order is broadly to obtain information from an innocent third party who has become involved in wrongdoing sufficiently to possess information necessary to identify the wrongdoer or locate property.

The SKAT v FFA case is a powerful example.

The bank was not necessarily alleged to have committed the underlying fraud.

Nevertheless, it possessed information needed to identify:

• account holders;
• recipients;
• onward transfers;
• location of funds.

The DIFC Court considered that information essential to tracing.

21. Bankers Trust-Type Relief

A Bankers Trust order is particularly useful where a claimant has a proprietary claim to assets and needs banking information to trace those assets.

For example:

Victim → fraudulent payment → Bank A → Bank B → investment account

The claimant may need:

• statements;
• transfer instructions;
• account-opening documents;
• beneficiary information;
• transaction records.

Without such information, tracing may be impossible.

22. Beneficial Ownership

Fraudsters frequently hide assets through:

• shell companies;
• nominee shareholders;
• relatives;
• trusts;
• offshore companies;
• holding companies;
• private investment vehicles.

Therefore, tracing must go beyond the question:

“Whose name is on the title?”

The more important question may be:

“Who ultimately controls or benefits from the asset?”

The current AML framework expressly supports financial investigations aimed at identifying persons receiving criminal property and their relationship with the accused.

23. Corporate Structures

Suppose:

Fraudster

↓

UAE Company A

↓

BVI Company B

↓

Dubai Company C

↓

Real Estate

The claimant must determine:

1. who owns Company A;
2. who owns Company B;
3. who controls Company C;
4. where the money moved;
5. whether the companies are legitimate separate entities;
6. whether assets can legally be recovered from them.

Corporate personality cannot simply be disregarded merely because companies are controlled by the same individual.

24. Tracing Into Real Estate

Fraud proceeds may be converted into:

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

The tracing question becomes:

Can the property be identified as acquired with the fraudulent funds or their traceable proceeds?

Evidence may include:

• bank statements;
• purchase contracts;
• payment schedules;
• escrow records;
• title documents;
• company records;
• correspondence;
• transaction timing.

25. Tracing Through Mixed Funds

A difficult problem arises where fraudulent funds are mixed with legitimate money.

Example:

AED 10 million legitimate funds + AED 5 million fraudulent funds = AED 15 million account balance.

The claimant must establish the appropriate legal basis for claiming against:

• the original money;
• traceable substitutes;
• mixed funds;
• equivalent-value property.

This becomes particularly complicated when funds are repeatedly transferred.

26. Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets

Modern fraud increasingly involves:

• cryptocurrency;
• stablecoins;
• exchange accounts;
• digital wallets;
• NFTs;
• tokenized assets.

The tracing process can involve:

Bank account → exchange → wallet → blockchain transfer → another wallet → exchange → fiat bank account.

The UAE's current AML framework expressly incorporates virtual-asset service providers within the broader information and cooperation architecture.

However, tracing a blockchain address does not automatically prove the legal identity of the person controlling it.

Additional evidence may be necessary.

27. Evidence Required for Asset Tracing

A strong asset-tracing claim normally requires a financial chronology.

For example:

This creates a transactional chain.

28. Standard of Proof

Asset tracing must be distinguished from criminal conviction.

A civil court may consider:

• documentary evidence;
• bank records;
• expert analysis;
• circumstantial evidence;
• corporate records;
• communications;
• transaction timing.

A claimant should not assume that proving suspicious conduct is automatically equivalent to proving ownership of particular assets.

The evidentiary connection must be developed carefully.

29. Asset Freezing

Tracing and freezing are different.

Tracing

Answers:

Where did the money go?

Freezing/attachment

Answers:

How do we stop the defendant from moving it further?

A good strategy often uses both:

Trace → identify → freeze → litigate → enforce → recover.

30. International Cooperation

The UAE's 2025 AML law expressly provides for international cooperation.

Foreign authorities may request assistance concerning:

• identification;
• tracing;
• seizure;
• freezing;
• confiscation;
• records;
• witnesses;
• electronic information;
• criminal property.

Importantly, Article 21 allows qualifying foreign provisional or confiscation orders to be executed in the UAE without requiring a separate national investigation in the circumstances specified by the law.

This is highly significant for international fraud.

31. Foreign Judgment Versus Foreign Asset

A foreign judgment does not automatically mean that UAE assets can immediately be seized.

The claimant must consider:

1. whether the foreign judgment is recognizable;
2. whether enforcement requirements are satisfied;
3. whether the relevant UAE court has jurisdiction;
4. whether the asset belongs to the judgment debtor;
5. whether third-party rights exist;
6. whether local procedural requirements are satisfied.

32. Bona Fide Third Parties

Asset recovery must balance victim interests with the rights of innocent parties.

The current AML law expressly preserves rights lawfully vested in bona fide parties in the relevant circumstances.

Example:

Fraudster → sells property → innocent purchaser.

The innocent purchaser's legal position may be very different from that of a person who knowingly participated in the fraud.

33. Confiscation Versus Civil Restitution

This distinction is especially important.

Confiscation

The State deprives a person of criminal property under criminal law.

Restitution

The victim seeks restoration of property or compensation.

Therefore:

Confiscation does not automatically guarantee that the victim will receive the confiscated asset.

A separate civil recovery strategy may be necessary.

34. Current UAE AML Law and Equivalent-Value Recovery

The current framework is not limited to locating the exact original banknotes or funds.

Where criminal property cannot be directly confiscated in specified circumstances, the law provides mechanisms concerning funds of equivalent value and value-based confiscation/fines.

This is extremely important where:

AED 10 million stolen → converted into cryptocurrency → transferred offshore → spent.

The inability to locate the precise original funds does not necessarily end the recovery process.

35. Asset Recovery and International Fraud — Practical Strategy

A sophisticated claimant should generally consider the following sequence.

Step 1 — Build the fraud map

Identify:

• victim;
• fraudster;
• companies;
• banks;
• intermediaries;
• beneficiaries.

Step 2 — Build the transaction map

Follow every transfer.

Step 3 — Identify UAE connections

Look for:

• bank accounts;
• companies;
• real estate;
• vehicles;
• investments;
• virtual assets;
• directors;
• beneficial owners.

Step 4 — Preserve evidence

Immediately preserve:

• bank statements;
• emails;
• contracts;
• blockchain records;
• corporate documents;
• transaction records.

Step 5 — Seek protective relief

Consider:

• precautionary attachment;
• freezing relief where available;
• proprietary injunction;
• other preservation orders.

Step 6 — Seek third-party disclosure

Potential sources:

• banks;
• financial institutions;
• exchanges;
• corporate service providers;
• intermediaries.

Step 7 — Commence substantive proceedings

Bring:

• fraud;
• deceit;
• restitution;
• damages;
• proprietary;
• contractual claims,

as appropriate.

Step 8 — Coordinate foreign proceedings

Use applicable:

• treaties;
• letters of request;
• judicial cooperation;
• recognition/enforcement mechanisms.

Step 9 — Enforce

Once judgment/order is obtained, identify and attach assets.

36. Multi-Jurisdiction Asset-Tracing Model

A useful model is:

Fraud

↓

Initial proceeds

↓

First bank account

↓

Layering

↓

Corporate vehicle

↓

Investment

↓

Real estate / securities / crypto

↓

Ultimate beneficiary

↓

Freezing/attachment

↓

Judgment

↓

Enforcement

↓

Recovery

Every arrow represents a potential evidentiary and jurisdictional problem.

37. DIFC as an Asset-Tracing Forum

The SKAT v FFA decision demonstrates the particular usefulness of the DIFC where an international claimant needs information from a UAE-based financial institution concerning internationally transferred funds.

The court recognized the practical reality that fraudsters may conceal assets across jurisdictions and that disclosure may be necessary to identify both the recipients and the location of property.

This makes the DIFC particularly relevant to international financial fraud.

38. Onshore UAE and DIFC Should Not Be Confused

39. Importance of Oskar

Oskar v Olindo is important because it shows the DIFC Court's willingness to interpret enforcement provisions in a way that prevents asset concealment.

The court emphasized the purpose of asset-discovery provisions and effective enforcement.

The broader lesson is:

A judgment debtor should not be able to defeat enforcement simply by hiding information about assets.

40. Asset Tracing and Banking Secrecy

Bank confidentiality is not necessarily an absolute barrier to legally authorized investigation.

The current AML framework permits competent authorities, in appropriate circumstances, to obtain information from financial institutions and other regulated entities for tracing and investigation.

But private civil litigants do not simply acquire unlimited access to banking information.

They need the appropriate:

• court order;
• disclosure mechanism;
• statutory authority;
• jurisdictional basis.

41. Fraudulent Transfers

A common asset-protection technique is:

Fraud → judgment threatened → asset transferred to relative/company → debtor claims no assets.

The legal system may scrutinize transactions designed to frustrate seizure, freezing or confiscation.

The current AML framework specifically addresses transactions or acts intended to undermine enforcement of seizure, freezing or confiscation orders, while protecting bona fide third-party rights in the circumstances provided by law.

42. Civil Fraud and Restitution

Under UAE civil law, fraud can generate several possible consequences depending on the facts:

• rescission/avoidance of a transaction;
• compensation;
• restitution;
• recovery of misappropriated property;
• recovery of consequential losses.

The new Civil Transactions Law should be applied to post-1 June 2026 matters, while older cases interpreting the 1985 Code remain useful for historical principles.

43. Limitation and Delay

Asset tracing should begin quickly.

Delay can cause:

• funds to move;
• companies to dissolve;
• records to disappear;
• cryptocurrency to be transferred;
• property to be sold;
• third-party rights to arise.

The SKAT v FFA court recognized the argument that funds transferred many years earlier might have disappeared, but considered that modern electronic records could still make tracing worthwhile.

44. Parallel Proceedings

A complex fraud may involve:

Country A

Original civil fraud litigation.

Country B

Criminal investigation.

UAE

Asset tracing and preservation.

England

Commercial proceedings.

DIFC

Disclosure/freezing/proprietary proceedings.

Switzerland

Bank-record proceedings.

The claimant must coordinate these proceedings to avoid:

• inconsistent orders;
• duplication;
• procedural abuse;
• privilege problems;
• conflicting disclosure obligations.

45. Risks of Poor Asset-Tracing Strategy

A claimant may lose valuable time by:

• suing only the fraudster;
• waiting for final judgment before tracing;
• ignoring third-party banks;
• failing to identify beneficial owners;
• overlooking DIFC/ADGM jurisdiction;
• failing to preserve digital evidence;
• confusing criminal confiscation with civil recovery;
• seeking an excessively broad disclosure order;
• failing to establish a proprietary connection.

46. Key Legal Principle

The most important principle is:

Asset tracing is an evidence-driven process rather than merely a debt-collection exercise.

The claimant must construct a credible chain connecting:

wrongful conduct → original asset → transfer → recipient → substitute asset → present location.

The stronger that chain, the stronger the prospects of preservation and recovery.

47. Special Importance of the 2025 AML Law

The current AML framework significantly strengthens the institutional architecture for asset recovery.

Article 21 addresses international cooperation and expressly contemplates:

• tracing;
• seizure;
• freezing;
• confiscation;
• records;
• electronic information;
• recovery of criminal property. 

Article 22 addresses the recovery and management of seized, frozen and confiscated assets and requires coordination between competent authorities to enhance asset recovery.

This is particularly important for multi-jurisdiction fraud because the proceeds may be outside the original crime scene.

48. Overall Legal Position

UAE asset tracing in multi-jurisdiction fraud cases is best understood as a layered legal strategy:

Civil law

Provides:

• fraud/deceit claims;
• compensation;
• restitution;
• contractual remedies.

Civil procedure

Provides:

• attachment;
• preservation;
• enforcement.

Criminal law

Provides:

• investigation;
• seizure;
• freezing;
• confiscation.

AML law

Provides:

• financial investigation;
• tracing;
• beneficial-owner investigation;
• international cooperation;
• confiscation/recovery mechanisms.

DIFC/ADGM law

Can provide:

• freezing orders;
• proprietary injunctions;
• Norwich Pharmacal orders;
• Bankers Trust-type disclosure;
• examination and enforcement mechanisms.

49. Conclusion

UAE asset tracing in multi-jurisdiction fraud cases is no longer limited to simply locating a defendant's UAE bank account. Modern tracing can follow money through banks, companies, securities, real estate, offshore structures and virtual assets.

The most significant authorities include SKAT v FFA Private Bank (DIFC CFI 004/2024), which demonstrates the practical use of bank disclosure for tracing internationally transferred fraud proceeds; Oskar v Olindo (DIFC CA 009/2024), which emphasizes purposive asset-discovery powers; and the UAE Federal Supreme Court's Penal Cassation No. 891/2022, which confirms the independent character of money laundering and the importance of evidence connecting funds to unlawful activity.

The practical formula is:

Identify → Trace → Preserve → Disclose → Freeze/Attach → Establish Ownership/Proprietary Connection → Obtain Judgment/Order → Enforce → Recover.

For post-1 June 2026 UAE cases, the new Civil Transactions Law and the 2025 AML regime must be considered rather than relying mechanically on older case law. The older UAE Supreme Court cases remain valuable for understanding historical principles, while recent DIFC decisions provide particularly important guidance for sophisticated international asset-tracing and disclosure disputes.