24 years after the crime - SFO returns £400,000 to nine victims of Lebanese Banker £4.4m fraud

UK SFO to Repay £400,000 to Fraud Victims of Lebanese Banker – Explained

• The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has announced that it will repay more than £400,000 to nine fraud victims, almost 24 years after the original offences, using civil recovery powers rather than criminal prosecution.
• This is the first time the SFO has returned recovered proceeds directly to victims in the absence of a conviction, rather than paying the funds to HM Treasury.
• The case marks a significant development in UK proceeds‑of‑crime enforcement, with clear implications for asset‑holding structures, historic exposure, sanctions risk, and long‑tail financial crime liability.
• This case represents a material evolution in proceeds-of-crime enforcement, reinforcing that illicit funds can be pursued and returned to victims’ decades after the original offence, without the need for a criminal conviction.

Boards should view this as a forward indicator of more assertive asset‑recovery strategies by enforcement authorities.

1. What has happened?

• On 8 January 2026, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced that it will return more than £400,000 to nine victims of an international email fraud that took place between 2001 and 2002, nearly 24 years ago. [gov.uk], [lawgazette.co.uk]
• The funds were allegedly stolen by Abdullah Ali Jammal, a Lebanese banker and former director of a retail‑depositor bank, who ran the scheme from the UK in the early 2000s before fleeing the jurisdiction. [gov.uk], [globalinve…review.com]

2. The fraud itself – what was done?

The fraud was an advance‑fee email scam, a forerunner of what would later be known as “Nigerian” or 419‑type frauds:

• Victims received unsolicited emails claiming that large sums of money were locked in countries such as Nigeria
• They were told their assistance was needed to “release” the funds
• In exchange, they were promised a commission of 10–25%
• Victims were persuaded to send money to cover supposed “fees” or “taxes” [gov.uk], [lawgazette.co.uk]

The SFO estimates that:

• 18 individuals were defrauded in total
• The scheme generated over £4.4 million
• Many victims lost tens of thousands of pounds each. [gov.uk], [wired-gov.net]

3. Why no prosecution?

The SFO opened a criminal investigation in 2002, but:

• Jammal fled the UK before he could be charged
• By 2021, the SFO concluded there was no realistic prospect of securing a conviction
• As a result, the arrest warrant was withdrawn and the criminal case discontinued [gov.uk], [lawgazette.co.uk]

This is a crucial point: there has been no criminal conviction in this case.

4. How were the funds recovered after so long?

4.1 Civil recovery instead of prosecution

Rather than relying on a criminal conviction, the SFO used civil recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). [euroweeklynews.com], [lawgazette.co.uk]

Key features of civil recovery:

• The action is against the property, not the person
• No criminal conviction is required
• The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities
• It is often used where suspects are:
• Overseas
• Deceased
• Unfit for trial

Normally, recovered assets in civil recovery cases are paid to HM Treasury.

4.2 Freezing of funds linked to Lebanon

The SFO froze accounts linked to Jammal, including over £150,000 that was destined for the family‑controlled Jammal Trust Bank in Lebanon. [gov.uk], [lawgazette.co.uk]

Important context:

• The Jammal Trust Bank is sanctioned by the United States for facilitating banking services for a terrorist organisation
• The SFO expressly stated that this case was not terrorism‑related, but the sanctions status was relevant to asset‑tracing and freezing. [lawgazette.co.uk], [solicitornews.co.uk]

5. A “pioneering” legal step – returning money to victims

5.1 High Court approval

In 2023, the SFO obtained High Court permission to bring civil recovery proceedings on behalf of the victims themselves, not the Treasury – described by the SFO as a “pioneering interpretation” of POCA. [lawgazette.co.uk], [gov.uk]

This required:

• Locating victims across jurisdictions (UK, US, France)
• Securing their consent to the proceedings
• Demonstrating that the funds represented recoverable property directly traceable to the fraud

The work involved cooperation with:

• FBI (US)
• Australian Federal Police
• Belgian and French authorities
• UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. [gov.uk], [wired-gov.net]

5.2 Why this matters

This is the first time the SFO has:

• Used POCA civil recovery in this way; and
• Returned recovered funds directly to victims instead of the Treasury. [lawgazette.co.uk], [euroweeklynews.com]

The £400,000 will be:

• Distributed pro‑rata among nine identified victims
• Expected to represent the vast majority of their original losses. [lawgazette.co.uk]

6. Official reaction

The SFO described the case as ground‑breaking.

Nick Ephgrave QPM, Director of the SFO, said:

“Fraud devastates lives and the SFO will pursue justice for victims using every tool at our disposal… we’re returning stolen money directly to the people who were defrauded.” [gov.uk]

The Solicitor General, Ellie Reeves MP, added that the case demonstrated the Government’s determination to disrupt fraudsters and recover illicit gains through international cooperation. [gov.uk]

7. Why this is important for financial‑crime professionals

This case has wider significance:

• ✅ Demonstrates expanded use of civil recovery without conviction
• ✅ Reinforces focus on victim restitution, not just asset forfeiture
• ✅ Shows willingness to pursue very old cases where funds remain traceable
• ✅ Highlights risks around cross‑border banking and sanctions exposure
• ✅ Signals future SFO strategy: this approach will be used in other suitable cases. [gov.uk]

For AML, sanctions, and proceeds‑of‑crime specialists, it underlines:

• The long tail risk of historic fraud proceeds
• The importance of asset tracing and freezing
• The convergence of POCA, sanctions, and international cooperation