Robert Tchenguiz today declared the high court’s judgment quashing search warrants issued against him and his brother last year, as a “damning indictment” on the Serious Fraud Office.
In a written statement, Tchenguiz said: “When the SFO appeared at my home and offices at 6.30am in a blaze of ‘self-engendered publicity’, to quote today’s judgment, I said their conduct was both outrageous and unlawful. Today’s judgment is a damning indictment of the investigation conducted under the SFO’s previous director.
“The investigation was characterised by a failure to understand the financial markets. There was a failure to carry out any independent investigation or verification of matters reported to them by Grant Thornton, who the court noted ‘owed duties to their own clients which rightly took precedence over the interests of the public’.
“Search warrants were obtained on the basis of a presentation which the court has variously branded unfair, inaccurate and unjustified. The court was especially critical of the case manager, Mick Randall, observing ‘there was no justification for the evidence of the case manager It was a grave misrepresentation by the case manager for which we have had no proper explanation.
“The court has been very clear – had the SFO acted properly, these warrants would not have been issued.
“As a result of the SFO’s unlawful actions, I and my family have suffered enormous damage, not least to my reputation. I now intend to pursue my claim in respect of the damages I have suffered as a result of the SFO’s illegal actions. I also intend to bring proceedings against the SFO in respect of my arrest.”
Vincent Tchenguiz, chairman of Consensus Business Group, added: “The series of concessions made by the SFO following the raids on my home and offices had already shown that the search warrants were flawed.
“Today’s judgment highlights that the orders for those searches, which have caused massive damage to my business and to my reputation, should never have been granted. They were the result of the SFO, under its former leadership, omitting pertinent facts and making misrepresentations to the court.
“I am glad that this judicial review will result in far-reaching changes in the law which will prevent others from suffering a similar injustice in the future.”
“I will be seeking damages from the SFO – and from any other parties who contributed to the court being misled. My claims will reflect the substantial personal and business costs and losses that have directly resulted from the actions of these parties.
“It has taken an inordinate amount of time for this to be resolved. As the judgment states – ‘the case is not a complex one. The investigation should have been concluded a very long time before now.’ As anyone in business will tell you, time is money.”
