Nov 2026
Last month, judges, practitioners, investigators and in-house counsel gathered in Miami for C5’s Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery Conference. Against a backdrop of increasingly sophisticated concealment techniques and ever more fragmented asset structures, the discussions returned repeatedly to a single proposition: successful recovery is the product of deliberate, coordinated strategy rather than reactive litigation. Below are the themes that resonated most strongly with the Conyers team and the practical implications for those advising on cross-border fraud and asset recovery.
Key Takeaways
Recovery Is a Strategy, Not a Reflex
A recurring theme was the tension between freezing assets and actually recovering them. A freezing order preserves the position, but it is not an end, and the treatment of interim relief can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. With concealment methods becoming faster and more layered, often involving complex structures, speakers agreed that success depends on a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional strategy from the outset.
Lord Briggs’ formulation, “Find, Freeze, Follow, Trace”, served as a useful framework. A matter may start in one jurisdiction, but it rarely ends there, and practitioners must define early the role each jurisdiction will play in the tracing exercise. Balancing cooperation across jurisdictions, and the competing interests and procedures involved, remains a key practical challenge.
The Offshore Forum: Where the Holding Structure Sits
Offshore courts are frequently the forum in which the relevant holding structure sits, so early forum strategy, including interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings, can be decisive in preserving assets. Freezing orders against persons unknown depend on speed and confidentiality, and the willingness of offshore courts to grant ex parte and sealed relief is a significant practical advantage.
The British Virgin Islands (BVI) remains at the heart of many corporate disputes. BVI companies often sit within larger groups and are frequently not the entity directly implicated in the wrongdoing. Even so, BVI liquidation proceedings can be a powerful tool for unlocking control, and insolvency tools more generally, used effectively and with care, can expose fraud and open a path to recovery.
Candour and the Advocate the Court Can Trust
In the BVI, the duty of full and frank disclosure remains central to applications for ex parte and secrecy-based relief. Applicants must make the court aware of the limits of their knowledge and keep it informed of developments as the matter progresses.
Cayman Islands Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale’s keynote reinforced this message: attorneys should strive to be the advocate the court can trust. The Chief Justice also cautioned against the inordinate length of submissions and the volume of unnecessary material that has become commonplace in high-value litigation, a timely reminder that focus and economy are themselves persuasive.
Intelligence, Technology and the Limits of Reach
Corporate intelligence remains underused in offshore jurisdictions, yet it could add real value to disclosure exercises, asset tracing and beyond. When tracing assets in high-risk jurisdictions, using the right tools is essential.
AI-driven investigation tools are similarly promising, but their use must be weighed against data protection and cross-border data transfer requirements; the GDPR was cited several times as a necessary limit on the reach of certain intelligence tools. Speakers also warned that corporate intelligence obtained in breach of ethical duties can amount to an abuse of the court’s process, even where it is obtained outside that process. The question is whether the material is being deployed to give a party a tactical advantage. If it is, and it was improperly obtained, an abuse of process may be found. Investigative conduct must therefore be capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Bridging Common Law and Civil Law Approaches
Common law practitioners frequently receive requests from civil law systems, and understanding those systems’ different approach to disclosure helps in anticipating what is needed and responding effectively. Speakers from civil law jurisdictions reminded delegates that they do not have the discovery obligations familiar in common law systems. As a result, it may be necessary to engage the criminal process to compel the production of information, where it is proper to do so.
Contempt as a Deliberate Tactical Tool
Contempt proceedings are increasingly being used to exert pressure in litigation, and in fraud claims they should be planned and pursued deliberately. Contempt is, however, a coercive remedy: if it can be shown that a committal would serve no useful purpose or would not operate to coerce the defendant, it will not be granted. Practitioners found contempt most effective when coupled with a debarring order, preventing the defendant from continuing to defend other proceedings in which it has an interest.
Alternative Routes to Recovery
Offshore anti-money laundering (AML) regimes and regulators can offer a useful route to recovering fraud proceeds, although this must be balanced against client confidentiality obligations and the gateways available for disclosure. Whistleblower reward programmes can likewise generate significant recoveries, but they carry risks that should be carefully weighed before they are pursued.
Conclusion
The conference confirmed that effective asset recovery is increasingly a matter of strategy, coordination and credibility. Fraudsters are moving faster and structuring more cleverly, and the response must be equally sophisticated: early forum planning, intelligent use of insolvency and interim remedies, investigative methods that will withstand scrutiny, and unwavering candour before the court. For in-house counsel and practitioners alike, the message is clear. Recoveries are won by those who plan for them from the first day, across every jurisdiction in play.