MAREVA INJUNCTION

Definition: pre-trial injunction restraining D and persons with control over Ds assets from dealing with their assets in ways that will be detrimental to Ps interests pending trial.

Available where P has a strong prima facie case against D and there is a real risk that D would render themselves judgment-proof, for example, dissipate their assets in order to frustrate Ps efforts to enforce judgment in his/her favour should P prevail at trial judgment -proof

May be obtained before commencement of proceeding or at anytime during the proceedings.
May also be granted after judgment in aid of execution

Obtained on ex parte basis, that is, without notice to D

Purpose:
Protects integrity of civil justice system by ensuring that courts dont give hollow judgments
Prevents D from removing assets from the jurisdiction of a court, or from disposing of, or dealing with assets within the jurisdiction in a way that will frustrate the ends of justice in an action instituted or to be commenced by the P


Origins of Mareva Injunction
Prior to 1975, the common law position was that a P was not entitled to demand from the D security in advance of judgment. Thus, a court could not restrain a D in respect of their assets before trial referred to as the rule in Lister v. Stubbs. See exceptions to this rule in Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, p. 912-3

The English Court of Appeal was faced with foreign Ds in shipping cases, who could easily transfer assets out of London to evade execution. It recognised another exception to the rule in Lister v. Stubbs to grant an order that freezes Ds assets within the jurisdiction of the court if there is a risk of evading judgment although P has no proprietary interests in the asset in question. In effect, a pre-judgment execution.

Injunction named after one of the early shipping cases - Mareva Compania v. International Bulkcarriers SA (1975).

Injunction was intended to protect the interests of creditors against non-resident Ds where there was a real risk of removal of assets from the courts jurisdiction in order to defeat the Ps claim.

In Mareva Compania v. International Bulkcarriers SA, the D was a foreign corp. There was evidence that D would move money deposited to its credit in a London bank before trial unless D was restrained and this could defeat the Ps claim. The C.A. upheld an ex parte injunction enjoining the D from disposing of its assets within or moving it outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Lord Denning ignored the rule in Lister which he saw as an obstacle to such an injunction and instead relied on the Judicature Act, s 45 which empowers the court to grant any order they deem just and convenient in the circumstance as necessary to prevent the D from flouting the process of the English courts to the detriment of creditors. In BC, such a jurisdiction is found in the Law and Equity Act, s. 39.

Domestic Defendants
Originally granted only against foreign Ds
Mareva injunctions may now be issued against domestic Ds so long as P establishes substantial risk of dissipation of assets pending trial to his or her detriment - Aetna
Not restricted to assets likely to be removed from a courts jurisdiction. Includes assets that may be disposed of within the courts jurisdiction
Not limited to money. May also include goods in the jurisdiction of the court - Aetna

Adoption of Mareva Injunction in Canada
Canadian courts have jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions to restrain the disposition of assets prior to trial where it is deemed necessary: Aetna Financial Services

Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman (SCC)
Facts: D, Aetna, is a federally incorporated company doing business in a number of provinces including Manitoba. P alleged an improper appointment of a receiver for its business. D was in the process of winding up its operations in Manitoba. P was concerned that D would transfer its assets out of Manitoba, which could make it difficult for P to execute a judgment in its favour in Manitoba. P sought a Mareva injunction to restrain Ds from removing their assets from Manitoba pending trial.

Held: Court has jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in a proper case. However, injunction was not available in this case.
Removal of assets from Manitoba posed no risk to Ps interest. Injunction not available unless there is evidence that D is moving assets in order to defeat Ps claim.
As well, there are statutory provisions for the enforcement of Manitoba judgments in other provinces that can protect Ps interests, thereby making a Mareva injunction unnecessary

The Federal Element
Mareva injunction originated in a unitary system (U.K.). Works differently in a federal country
Reference to jurisdiction in the Canadian context could mean a provincial and/or federal jurisdiction
Given reciprocal agreements for enforcement of judgments across provinces, mere transfer of assets b/n provinces does not constitute removal from jurisdiction to warrant a Mareva injunction.

Criteria for Obtaining a Mareva Injunction
1. Accessibility Threshold: Strong prima facie case Aetna
2. Degree of Risk: Genuine risk of dissipation of asset to avoid the possibility of a judgment
Mere transfer of assets b/n provinces not sufficient to justify a Mareva injunction
Aetna suggests that availability should depend on the purpose for which D seeks to move assets Not available where D is moving assets in the normal course of its business.

Q. Does Aetna exclude availability of injunction absent fraudulent intent?

Some Canadian courts have limited availability of Mareva injunctions to situations of fraudulent intent See see R v. Consolidated Fastfrate Transport Inc. (1995) 125 DLR (4th) 1, 14-15 (Ont. C.A.); Chitel v. Rothbart (1982) 141 DLR (3d) 268 (Ont. C.A.); In Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Blyth (1993) 113 DLR (4th) 501 (FCA) - CB, pp. 928-9
BC courts have generally adopted a liberal approach and may grant a Mareva injunction even where there is no deliberate attempt to frustrate the execution of judgment - Mooney v. Orr (1994), 100 BCLR (2d) 335 (SC). In Gateway Village Investments v. Sybra Food Services Ltd. (1987) 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 234 (SC) CB, p. 928, Southin J. (as she then was) held that Aetna simply meant that jurisdiction in a federal state is a factor, albeit an important factor to be considered in deciding whether it is appropriate to grant a Mareva Injunction.
Practical Considerations: A Mareva injunction is very intrusive for Ds, yet it provides Ps opportunities for obtaining meaningful remedies. Should the injunction be limited to situations where there is no evidence of fraudulent intent?
Would your answer be different where the amount involved is small relative to the Ds net worth? See Gateway Village Investments v. Sybra Food Services Ltd. (1987) 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 234 (SC) CB, p. 928

3. Ps obligations:

i. Full and frank disclosure of facts actually known to P and those that could have been known upon reasonable enquiry- Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine SA, [1979] QB 645 (CA), adopted by the SCC in Aetna CB, p. 927, n. 2
ii. P must give particulars and grounds for basis of his or her application
iii. Undertaking in damages


4. Location of Assets: Injunction may be granted in respect of Ds assets anywhere in the world but courts often refrain from making orders extraterritorial unless it is absolutely necessary to protect Ps interests.

Scope of Mareva Injunction
Order is limited to extent of Ds assets necessary to protect Ps interest in the particular case

Order may be ambulatory Could affect Ds current assets and those acquired subsequent to order

Does not extend to property that D holds in a capacity other than that in which s/he is being sued

Effect of a Mareva Injunction on Third Parties
Injunction may often have repercussions for third parties holding Ds assets
Named third parties required to respect terms of the injunction or risk contempt proceedings
In Z. Ltd. v. A-Z & AA-LL Ltd., the English C.A. outlined the rights and responsibilities of third parties regarding compliance with Mareva injunctions.
i. Indemnity P to indemnify third parties for cost of compliance
ii. Third parties to be given precise notice re assets covered by injunction and to what extent
iii. Search P may request third parties to locate Ds assets at Ps expense
iv. Third Parties Named P to furnish court with names of third parties to be served
v. Maximum Amount Asset to be held not to exceed value of Ps claim.
vi. Normal living expenses Order to specify amount permitted for D to use for normal living expenses
vii. Joint Account Order may cover assets held in a joint account if court deems it necessary to protect Ps interests
viii. Return Day Order may specify date that D or affected third party may return to court to be heard
ix. Undertakings P to give damages undertakings to D and affected third parties
x. Discovery D to be given opportunity to prove that s/he has sufficient assets to satisfy judgment and specify the same. Failure to disclose reinforces perception that D is evading judgment.


Creditors
A Mareva injunction does not affect the right of Ds creditors Aetna

Does not give P priority vis-à-vis other creditors

Terima Kasih Canon diatas info ini.
Memang rumit kes ini..... pening kepala aku.

pelabur lain diluar kenyang dengan swisscash,
kita kat sini entahlah....
kerana nila setitik rosak nama swisscash sekali

setelah aku baca dalam bernama dan apa yang aku faham mereka bertiga ni tidak boleh cari pelabur baru dan melobi sesiapa sahaja mengenai swisscash diseluruh dunia,itu sahaja.betullah apa yang swisscash buat keluarkan nama malaysia dalam senarainyer.mungkin berita ni saja kasi orang lain panik,lagipun bukan semua orang tahu apa yang jadi sekarang.

-- Edited by sate_biru at 16:18, 2007-07-10

10 Julai, 2007 14:37 PM

SC Dapat Injunksi Mareva Terhadap Penipuan Pelaburan Swisscash

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 Julai (Bernama) -- Dalam satu tindakan penguatkuasaan penting terhadap aktiviti penipuan pelaburan, Suruhanjaya Sekuriti berjaya memperoleh injunksi Mareva seluruh dunia terhadap mereka yang terlibat dalam penipuan pelaburan Swisscash, yang menghalang mereka daripada melupuskan aset di dalam dan luar Malaysia.

SC juga mengumumkan ia sudah menyekat akses dua lagi laman web yang menawarkan skim pelaburan haram -- www.eaindex.com & www.winifund.com -- yang menawarkan skim pelaburan haram, menjadikan 10 jumlah laman web yang disekat setakat ini.

SC mendapatkan Mareva atau perintah sekatan itu ekoran pemfailan saman ke atas defendan-defendan - Albert Lee Kee Sien, Kelvin Choo Mun Hoe, Amir bin Hassan, Dynamic Revolution Sdn Bhd, Swiss Mutual Fund (1948) S.A>, SMF International Limited and SMF (1948) International Limited, kata SC dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Injunksi itu diperoleh pada 21 Jun lepas.

Mareva menyekat dan menghalang defendan-defendan daripada menjalankan perniagaan Swisscash, menyasar, mendapat dan mengumpul dana, daripada orang ramai untuk melabur dalam Swisscash atau mana-mana skim pelaburan Internet yang lain.

Defendan-defendan juga tidak boleh menjadi hos atau menjalankan operasi laman-laman web Swisscash atau menjalankan mana-mana laman web seumpama itu yang mencari pelanggan untuk Swisscash atau mana-mana skim pelaburan Internet yang lain.

Tiada sesiapa antara defendan-defendan dalam skim Swisscash mempunyai lesen atau diluluskan oleh SC untuk menjalankan aktiviti pengurusan dana, katanya.

SC berkata ia mendapatkan Mareva berdasarkan siasatannya ke atas skim berkenaan mengikut Akta Industri Sekuriti 1983 dan Akta Kewangan Antipengganas dan Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram 2001.

-- BERNAMA

Assalamualaikum....

Member2 di pasaiSC JANGAN PANIK Insyallah...ada jalan penyelesaiannya....berdoalah...

Baru ni 03.22pm En Amir balas sms saya, saya wish dia supaya "TABAH dan KEJAYAAN di tangan tuan"

En Amir balas "Terima kasih....kejayaan utk semua insyallah"

Penuh makna kata2nya tu...tuan2 renungkanlah....

Kalau kerajaan Msia nak saman SMF dan SC kita tengok jelah....jangan MALAYSIA malu sendiri plak nanti....kenapalah ambik tindakan macam ni...cuba cari jalan penyelesaian yang baik???

Lepas settle semua kes kita Silent2Rich ajelah....

-- Edited by PU2 at 16:37, 2007-07-10

-- Edited by PU2 at 16:41, 2007-07-10

THE MAREVA INJUNCTION

The Mareva injunction (variously known also as a freezing order or Mareva order), in Commonwealth jurisdictions, is a court order which freezes assets so that a defendant to an action cannot dissipate their assets from beyond the jurisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a judgment. It is named for Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, decided in 1975, although the first recorded instance of such an order in English jurisprudence was Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Karageorgis in 1975, decided very shortly before the Mareva decision; however, in the UK the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 now define a Mareva order as a "freezing" order. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process.

It is not a security (Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd), nor a means to pressure a judgment debtor (Camdex International Ltd v Bank of Zambia (No. 2)), nor does it confer a proprietary interest in the assets of the judgment debtor (Cretanor Maritime Co Ltd v Irish Marine Management Ltd). However, some authorities have treated the Mareva injunction as an order to stop a judgment debtor from dissipating his assets so as to have the effect of frustrating judgment, rather than the more strenuous test of requiring an intent to abuse court procedure. An example of the former would be paying off a legitimate debt (Iraqi Ministry of Defence v Arcepey Shipping Co SA), whereas an example of the latter would be hiding the assets in overseas banks on receiving notice of the action.

It is recognised as being quite harsh on defendants because the order is often granted at the pre-trial stage in ex parte hearings, based on affidavit evidence alone. A Mareva injunction is often combined with an Anton Piller order in these circumstances. This can be disastrous for a defendant as the cumulative effect of these orders can be to destroy the whole of a business' custom by freezing most of its assets and revealing important information to its competitors.

A freezing order will usually only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an injunction would involve a real risk that a judgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied (Ninemia Maritime corporation v Trave Schiffhartgesellschaft m.b.H und Co.K.G [1983] 1 WLR 1412).

Sungguh pelik kerana SS tidak terus menyekat web SC seperti 10 mangkuk ayun yang lain tetapi mengambil langkah perundangan untuk melawan dan menunjukkan betapa negatifnya SC ini kepada rakyat Malaysia khasnya...!

Ini peluang untuk kita menjadi saksi kebenaran yang akan datang sepanjang proses perbicaraan, sama ada kita akan kehilangan semua duit dan peluang kita atau pihak 'sana' akan menerima kemaluan yang amat besaq...!

Sama-sama tunggu. Saya sudah lama bersedia...!

Sya stju dgn pakai akai,
sya pun sdah bsdia,sgguh mnarik crita CSI ni.Mcm crta NUMBERS pun ada.Nak ambik tndakn udg2 kat sc & smf konon,org sna dah 60thn pngalamn dlm hal2 prudgn kwgn antrabgsa tau le apa nak buat dan dah bsdia dgn msalah camni.Ntah2 sc & smf nanti akn tarik kjaan mlysia sman malu kat MAHKAMAH ANTARABANGSA.Baru padan muka...Kna ugut skatan ekonomi bru tau.

Kalau SC Malaysia kalah bicara , malu besar Malaysia ni . mereka kena menuntut ilmu byk lagi untuk melawan swisscash .

Isu makin panas .....dan mendebarkan ...Kesudahannya mcm mana ? MENDEBARKAN SEMUA

Saya rasa mungkin Buletin Utama 8.00 Tv3 akan kuar issue ni mlm ni

Sama2 lah kita saksikan kes dikira antarabangsa selain kes antatuya..

Apa pun Swisscash tetap utuh!!

Salam Semua,

Sedikit info untuk dikongsi bersama

MAREVA INJUNCTION-Semua assets defendan (yang tertuduh) DIBEKUKAN.Biasanya akan disusuli dengan Anton Piller Injunction oleh mahkamah.

ANTON PILLER INJUNCTION-Kesemua assets defendan (yang tertuduh) disita/dirampas.

SC berkata ia mendapatkan Mareva berdasarkan siasatannya ke atas skim berkenaan mengikut Akta Industri Sekuriti 1983 dan Akta Kewangan Antipengganas dan Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram 2001.

Cuma nak tanya sikit,akta securiti maybe,tapi PENGGANAS KA KITA dan bawa balik profit dari pelaburan luar negara tu WANG HARAM KA?????

giloduit wrote:

---

KALO KERAJAAN NAK BLOK KE NAK APO KE KAT SWISSCASH.....AKAN KU JEJAK SWISSCASH WALAUPON KERAJAAN MENGHARAMKANNYA.......AKU TAK PEDULI

---

Waaa....dasyat hang nie...kalah penyakit tegar aku....
bagus2...hang memang pelaboq setia......

eee!! aku geram tul gan kerajaan kita ni ,tak abis2 dok kaco kita dapat rezeki dari luar negeri..kalau swisscash tipu kita pun bukan nya kerajaan nak rugi..kita sendiri yang rugi jer nape kerajaan sibuk2 nak sekat ..awat ? kita guna duit kerajaan ke tuk melabur? kita susah kerajaan nak tolong ke? tak paham ler gan kerajaan kita ni..

so kalau cam gitu, ELECTION nie??????

kalo dah kerajaan nak pecahkan periuk nasi kita..election ni kita kena wat pilihan yang patut ler:

Kemungkinan besar juga kes saman menyaman ini memakan masa yang lama based on 12daily kat usa, itupun mrk lawan balik. Mengikut cerita kwn yg join la.

Tindakan yg amat bodoh drp SS lebih memalukan negara kerana tidak menerima gelombang globalisasi. Swisscash/SMF tak heran pun lagi pun dgn jumlah future pelabur drp Mainland China, HK , Africa..bla..bla (seantero benua) lagi terbuka luas.

Malaysia nak tunjuk pandai la tu..lawak sungguh...

Pejam celik, pejam celik..lagi 2 months, 21 days utk ACF!!

bersabarlah wahai sahabat2 pelabur semua

mcm mana le pelangi nak kuar..asyik panasss je memanjang... bila nak sejuk nyer..

makin hari makin geram aku dgn krajaan msia ni........... dah la byk benda kat dlm negara yg dibuat nya meyusahkan rakyat....... nak wat projek pun sebab nak bagi job kat kroni2 dia je..... last2 byk projek yg x de kualiti..... kita yg org biasa ni la yg dok tanggung nya..... ada pluang nak cari duit lebih pun disekat nya jugak...... yg ramai dok dlm krajaan tu org yg kulit n agama sama mcm kita jugak... mungkin ini dah tabiat org yg sama mcm kita ........... MAMPUS LAH KO KRAJAAN

Salam ukhuwwah..... saya ada sikit musykil la.... apasal itu em**y tak masuk dlm senarai lagi? Adakah krn yg lancar dulu pak mintiri? Sapa boley jawap..... maybe nak tunggu dulu, sampai diorang cabut lari...

Pasal undi dlm PRU itu, dulu dlm blog nih saya pernah katakan..... undi hak masing2, nak undi sapa..... Jgn pasai ini kita ambik keputusan drastik, ap kata kalau pilih kjaan baru (atau campuran) kes nih x selesai, malah tambah rumit? Nak tukar Kjaan lagi ker?
Pasal tukar Kjaan nih, biarlah kita gunakan sbb munasabah..... byk sbb lain untuk tukar kjaan, masalah sosial yg berleluasa, masalah kroni, masalah ulama kata haram tapi menteri boley kata halal....dah "Heboh" dah... masalah ulama @mufti makan gaji, angguk apa tuan suruh, "Saya pakai periuk Nasional, kena la makan apa yg masak dlm tu...."
So.... maksud saya kalau rasa nak tukar Kjaan pun, biarlah alasan yg logik, yg menggugat keimanan dan kita sbg Islam.... biarlan sebab yg boleh membawa kpd kehancuran perpaduan dan kelemahan org Malaysia, biarlah sesuatu yang jika kita tak tukar... maka 10 atau 20 tahun akan datang bencana akan melanda Msia. Kalau alasan macam tu, maka wajar kita membuat pilihan baru....( perlu pikir jauuuuuuuuh ke depan beb, macam SC gak!). So... pensel di tangan anda, kertas undi nanti di depan mata, hanya anda (kot?) yang tahu undi anda....
Penting untuk kita sekarang, lebihkan berdoa..... mungkin doa kita selama ini tidak cukup kuat, mungkin ALLAH mahu kita lebihkan lagi berdoa kepadaNya, krn ALLAH suka org yg sentiasa mengingatiNya (dengan berdoa)....

so, topik terkini yg boleh kita kaitkan dgn tindakan gomen nie ialah : 1. election 2. 14 julai makin hampir...

pelabur kecik wrote:

---

Pasal undi dlm PRU itu, dulu dlm blog nih saya pernah katakan..... undi hak masing2, nak undi sapa..... Jgn pasai ini kita ambik keputusan drastik, ap kata kalau pilih kjaan baru (atau campuran) kes nih x selesai, malah tambah rumit? Nak tukar Kjaan lagi ker?
Pasal tukar Kjaan nih, biarlah kita gunakan sbb munasabah..... byk sbb lain untuk tukar kjaan, masalah sosial yg berleluasa, masalah kroni, masalah ulama kata haram tapi menteri boley kata halal....dah "Heboh" dah... masalah ulama @mufti makan gaji, angguk apa tuan suruh, "Saya pakai periuk Nasional, kena la makan apa yg masak dlm tu...."
So.... maksud saya kalau rasa nak tukar Kjaan pun, biarlah alasan yg logik, yg menggugat keimanan dan kita sbg Islam.... biarlan sebab yg boleh membawa kpd kehancuran perpaduan dan kelemahan org Malaysia, biarlah sesuatu yang jika kita tak tukar... maka 10 atau 20 tahun akan datang bencana akan melanda Msia. Kalau alasan macam tu, maka wajar kita membuat pilihan baru....( perlu pikir jauuuuuuuuh ke depan beb, macam SC gak!). So... pensel di tangan anda, kertas undi nanti di depan mata, hanya anda (kot?) yang tahu undi anda....
Penting untuk kita sekarang, lebihkan berdoa..... mungkin doa kita selama ini tidak cukup kuat, mungkin ALLAH mahu kita lebihkan lagi berdoa kepadaNya, krn ALLAH suka org yg sentiasa mengingatiNya (dengan berdoa)....

---

benda2 mcm ni dah lama org tau..... pasal SC ni pun boleh menggugat kajaan jugak... brapa ramai org yg rugi kalau SC terus hold acc MY ...... lain org lain cara pikir nya.......

kaya coz sc wrote:

---

so, topik terkini yg boleh kita kaitkan dgn tindakan gomen nie ialah : 1. election 2. 14 julai makin hampir...

---

sorry bro....... apa tarikh penting 14 JULY tu...... nak kawin ke?


p/s :sorry kalu terlambat ........: