Supporting Chinese living, studying and doing business in the UK – mitigating risk of committing business crime (Part 2) – Unexplained Wealth Orders

Unexplained Wealth Orders ("UWOs") are one of the most high-profile investigative tools in the civil recovery armoury of UK enforcement agencies. UWOs are particularly relevant to individuals who hold significant UK assets but have complex international financial arrangements. A UWO requires a person to demonstrate the legitimacy of their wealth, how they acquired certain assets rather than authorities first proving wrongdoing. 

For Chinese living, studying, or investing in the UK, the risk may not arise from wrongdoing, but from difficulties in evidencing the lawful origin of wealth accumulated through overseas businesses, family structures, investments, or historic financial practices that may be unfamiliar to UK authorities. Understanding how UWOs operate, and the circumstances in which they may be used, is therefore increasingly important.

1. What is an Unexplained Wealth Order ("UWO")?

UWOs were introduced by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which inserted sections 362A to 362U into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"). They are investigative orders that allow enforcement agencies to require a person to explain the origins of assets that appear disproportionate to their known lawful income. 

An UWO may be sought by agencies including the National Crime Agency ("NCA"), HM Revenue & Customs ("HMRC"), the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO"), the Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA") and the Crown Prosecution Service ("CPS").

Applications are made to the High Court which may grant an UWO where:

• The property is worth more than £50,000;
• There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent's known lawful income would have been insufficient to acquire the property or that the property has been obtained through unlawful conduct; and
• The respondent is either:
  • A politically exposed person ("PEP"), or
  • There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent is, or has been, involved in serious crime, or is connected to someone involved in serious crime. 

An UWO does not require proof that a criminal offence has been committed. It is an investigative mechanism designed to obtain information regarding the source of wealth.

2. How do UWOs work in practice?

Where an UWO is granted, the respondent must provide a detailed statement by the date specified by the court, explaining:

• The nature and extent of their interest in the property;
• How the property was acquired;
• How the purchase was funded;
• Any other information specified by the Court. 

In many cases, the enforcement authority will also seek an Interim Freezing Order ("IFO") alongside the UWO. This prevents the property being sold, transferred, charged, or otherwise dissipated while the investigation continues. 

The practical consequence can be significant. High-value real estate, investment portfolios, shareholdings, or other assets may effectively become frozen while the respondent attempts to satisfy the Court and enforcement authority regarding its origin.

3. What happens if a person cannot explain their wealth?

An UWO is not itself a confiscation order.

However, the consequences of failing to provide a satisfactory response can be severe.

If a respondent fails to comply without reasonable excuse, the property becomes presumed to be recoverable property in any subsequent civil recovery proceedings. This makes it substantially easier for enforcement agencies to seek recovery of the asset under POCA. 

In addition:

• Providing false or misleading information may constitute a criminal offence which carries a sentence of up to 2 years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine;
• Enforcement agencies may rely upon the information obtained in any response to commence wider civil recovery investigations;
• Financial institutions may reassess their risk exposure to the individual concerned;
• The publicity surrounding a UWO can cause substantial reputational damage. 

Even where a person ultimately demonstrates that their wealth is legitimate, responding to an UWO can involve extensive legal, forensic accounting, and evidential work. Assets can remain frozen during this often lengthy process and considerable harm can be caused to personal and professional reputations.

4. Why may Chinese nationals face particular risks?

Many Chinese lawfully acquire substantial wealth through entrepreneurship, international trade, property development, family businesses, or investments accumulated over many years.

However, difficulties can arise where:  Wealth has been accumulated across multiple jurisdictions; Assets are held through family members, friends, trusts, or corporate structures with nominees involved; Funds have moved through several banking and crypto systems before reaching the UK; Historic records are located outside the UK; Wealth originated many years before UK residency commenced.

UK enforcement agencies expect a clear documentary trail establishing both the source of funds and the wider source of wealth. This can create challenges where financial arrangements reflect cultural or commercial practices that are commonplace in China but less familiar in the UK.

For example: Family-funded property purchases; Inter-generational transfers of wealth; Informal shareholder arrangements; Complex group company structures; Historic cash-based business activity.

Where documentation is incomplete, enforcement agencies may seek further explanation and, in some circumstances, consider the appropriateness of an UWO.

5. Have UWOs been used against Chinese nationals?

There have been several recent examples demonstrating enforcement interest in assets held by Chinese nationals.

In 2025, the NCA obtained an UWO and freezing order against assets owned by Chinese national Binghai Su, including London property, artwork and dinosaur fossils reportedly worth in excess of £20 million. The matter ultimately concluded with a civil settlement resulting in substantial asset recovery by the NCA. Importantly, public reports noted that Mr Su had not been charged with any criminal offence in the underlying Singapore investigation. 

More recently, in March 2026, the CPS announced that it had obtained an UWO and IFO concerning a property portfolio worth approximately £81 million connected to Su Jiangbo and associated UK companies. 

These cases demonstrate a growing willingness by UK authorities to deploy UWOs where substantial UK assets are held by individuals linked to overseas jurisdictions and where questions arise regarding the provenance of wealth.

6. Can a UWO be challenged?

A respondent may challenge an UWO or oppose the continuation of associated freezing orders where:

• The statutory requirements have not been satisfied;
• The enforcement agency's evidence is insufficient;
• The property was funded from legitimate and adequately documented sources;
• The order is disproportionate in the circumstances.

Successfully resisting an UWO generally requires detailed preparation of evidence and a coherent explanation linking source of wealth, source of funds, and acquisition of the relevant property.

Contemporaneous records are often critical.

7. What steps can be taken to mitigate risk?

Chinese nationals living, studying, investing, or doing business in the UK can reduce risk by maintaining clear documentation concerning their wealth and financial affairs.

Practical steps include: Retaining records showing how wealth was originally accumulated; Keeping translated copies of key financial and tax documents; Maintaining evidence of overseas business ownership and income; Recording family gifts, loans, and inheritances formally; Using regulated financial institutions wherever possible; Keeping records of significant international transfers; Taking legal advice before responding to enquiries from enforcement agencies.

The earlier that legitimate sources of wealth can be evidenced, the easier it is to address regulatory concerns.

8. Conclusion

UWOs were introduced to address situations where valuable assets appear inconsistent with a person's known lawful income. While not as common as Account Freezing Orders, recent enforcement activity indicates that UK authorities regard them as an increasingly important asset recovery tool. 

For Chinese with property, investments, or business interests in the UK, the principal risk often arises from an inability to produce clear and comprehensive evidence explaining the origin of wealth accumulated across multiple jurisdictions and over many years.

Understanding how UWOs operate, documenting wealth carefully, and obtaining early legal advice where concerns arise are essential steps in protecting legitimate assets and avoiding unnecessary and costly litigation.

Howard Kennedy's Business Crime and Regulatory team advises individuals, families, investors and businesses facing civil and criminal asset recovery and tax investigations, including UWOs, AFOs, civil recovery proceedings and related cross-border financial investigations. Our experience of both UK enforcement practice and Chinese commercial and cultural practices enables us to assist clients in explaining legitimate sources of wealth to respond effectively to enforcement actions and mitigate against reputational harm.