- Dishonest assistance and fraudulent trading—worrying extension or timely imposition of responsibility on financial institutions? (Bilta v Nat West MarketsPLC)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case Details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In finding the defendants liable for dishonest assistance and for fraudulent trading, the court considered a number of legal principles. It is not necessary, in order to establish dishonest assistance, that the assistance should have been provided directly to the perpetrator of the breach of fiduciary duty or breach of trust. It was sufficient that the assistor dishonestly participated in a transaction with the knowledge that that participation would facilitate a breach of fiduciary duty of the type which occurred.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial