Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
BANK FRAUD, CHANGE OF POSITION AND ILLEGALITY: THE CASE OF THE INNOCENT MONEY-LAUNDERER
Barros Mattos
v. McDaniels
A person receives the proceeds of a bank fraud. He does not know the money is tainted, and has paid it away in all innocence on the fraudster’s instructions. But in paying it away he has committed a fairly minor regulatory offence. Should he still be liable to the victim of the fraud? In essence this was the issue facing Laddie J in Barros Mattos Jnr & others
v. MacDaniels Ltd.
1
Between 1995 and 1998 Nigerian fraudsters struck at a Brazilian bank in São Paulo, Banco Noroeste SA. Some $190 million was siphoned off by means of fraudulent SWIFT transfers organized by a catspaw of the robbers who worked at the bank’s Cayman Islands branch. Having been laundered through accounts at a congeries of more or less blue-blooded financial institutions in England, Switzerland and Hong Kong,2
the loot reached the fraudsters in Nigeria. They in turn transferred $8 million or thereabouts to Chief Nwandu and his tame companies, requesting them to convert it into naira and distribute it to a number of accomplices in Nigeria. Nwandu did as asked, keeping (as per the arrangement) $50,000 for his trouble. The scam came to light when shortly afterwards Noroeste was sold to Banco Santander, whose due diligence investigation revealed a large hole in Noroeste’s accounts. In due course the leading fraudster was murdered, and a number of the others enjoyed the hospitality of the Swiss police.
In England, Noroeste got judgment without more ado against the fraudsters. However, it also pursued Nwandu and his companies (whom collectively we will call the defendants). Initially they alleged that Nwandu had known what was going on and that therefore the defendants were liable for knowing receipt and/or dishonest assistance. Nwandu protested his innocence, saying he had been told the funds came from a series of successful oil trades. Noroeste continued to allege knowing wrongdoing, but also changed tack and added a further claim that, even if Nwandu had been duped, the defendants were still strictly liable in money had and received. The defendants in turn pointed out that they
1. [2004] EWHC 1188 (Ch); [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 475.
2. Lloyds TSB and Citibank in particular faced allegations that they had too readily allowed their facilities to be exploited by the fraudsters: The Times
, 3 April 2004.
CASE AND COMMENT
7