UK-WIDE: An Introduction

High Net Worth Individuals in Distressed Circumstances: Some Observations on Global Challenges 

The legal landscape for high net worth individuals (HNWIs) facing financial crime allegations continues to evolve rapidly, with each year bringing new enforcement priorities from the world’s most active jurisdictions. Against the backdrop of shifting geopolitical alliances, economic volatility, and diverging regulatory trends, the environment for providing legal advice and representation in this space has never been more complex or more critical.

A shifting enforcement landscape

Perhaps the most notable trend in 2024–2025 has been the rebalancing of enforcement priorities across the Atlantic.

In the United States, the once-dominant focus on foreign enforcement actions through Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prosecutions has softened. Moreover, while corporate compliance remains an institutional priority, headline-grabbing prosecutions are becoming far less frequent. This may be attributed not only to ongoing budgetary constraints within the US Government, but also to a more general refocusing of Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of State, and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) efforts towards domestic issues and sanctions enforcement, particularly in response to rising tensions involving Russia, China, and Iran.

Indeed, sanctions enforcement has surged in the US, UK, and across Europe. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) continues to assert global authority, targeting not only financial institutions and other corporate entities, but, increasingly, individuals for sanctions violations, export control breaches, or facilitation of prohibited transactions. For HNWIs with transatlantic ties – be it through property, trusts, or general business interests – the risks of inadvertent exposure (including to secondary sanctions) is growing significantly.

In the UK, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has moved from relative obscurity to occupy a central position in foreign enforcement actions. OFSI’s enhanced powers under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 have already had a marked impact. While UK penalties remain modest compared to those imposed by US regulators, the present trends are unmistakable: multijurisdictional sanctions compliance is no longer merely optional for HNWIs with international assets or politically sensitive profiles.

Cross-border complexity and enforcement co-operation

Further evidencing this trend of cross-border enforcement is the growing co-ordination between UK, EU, and US authorities. Information-sharing arrangements between OFSI, OFAC, the State Department, and the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) have become more fluid, and both formal and informal mechanisms for co-operation are actively being employed in high-profile investigations.

Mutual legal assistance requests (MLATs) remain a key procedural tool, but authorities are also relying more frequently on informal intelligence-sharing channels, especially in fast-moving cases involving asset freezes or restraint orders. Indeed, the “global reach” doctrine traditionally associated with US enforcement is now being mirrored by UK counterparts who are increasingly willing to test jurisdictional boundaries.

For clients, such increasing global co-operation means that issues arising in one jurisdiction are unlikely to remain contained. For HNWIs under scrutiny – often without prior experience with the criminal justice system – this can entail significant reputational, financial, and personal risk.

Political, economic, and social pressures on selective enforcement

Increasingly, in both the US and UK, the aggressive pursuit of sanctions evasion and financial crime has taken on political importance, often reflecting broader foreign policy objectives. As a result, enforcement decisions are not always evenly applied, and individuals perceived as being close to hostile regimes or controversial political movements may come under disproportionate scrutiny by government authorities. These political motivations influence not only the likelihood of investigation, but also the tone, scope and pace of legal proceedings.

But beyond politics, such enforcement actions have also been increasingly influenced by economic and social pressures. For instance, increasing scrutiny of public finances, combined with growing social concerns over wealth inequality, have created a context in which aggressive financial crime enforcement is not only accepted but, oftentimes, actively encouraged. As a result, HNWIs may face the risk of investigation regardless of whether they have actually engaged in unlawful conduct, but because their status alone makes them symbolic “villains”.

Ultimately, for HNWIs, these political, economic, and social motivations clearly raise the stakes for early legal intervention, strategic co-ordination across jurisdictions, and sensitive crisis management.

New regulatory threats: crypto, trusts, and nominee structures

Enforcement trends in 2024-2025 also include a marked focus on targeting the financial vehicles used by HNWIs to manage their wealth, including through offshore entities, trust arrangements, nominee structures, and – most recently – cryptocurrency holdings. Both UK and US authorities have signaled increased scrutiny of these financial mechanisms, and often adopt the formal position that such asset holding structures and/or alternative currency arrangements – regardless of the legitimate benefits they may provide to HNWIs, including privacy and tax mitigation – are cause for immediate suspicion.

In the US, the DOJ and SEC have intensified investigations into purported crypto-related fraud and market manipulation, while, in the UK, the expansion of the Register of Overseas Entities and new disclosure obligations under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 are designed to flush out beneficial ownership – thereby placing fiduciaries and wealth advisers under increasing regulatory pressure.

Faced with these new regulatory threats, legal advisers must be proactive in diagnosing vulnerabilities with HWNIs’ asset structures and other holdings, while advising on risk mitigation strategies, including undertaking restructurings or otherwise reassessing legacy financial arrangements.

Parallel threats to reputation, business and lifestyle continuity

For HNWIs, the reputational damage associated with involvement in a financial crime investigation can be catastrophic – even where no charges are ultimately brought. Adverse media coverage, particularly when driven by cross-border co-operation between agencies or strategic leaks, can result in frozen bank accounts, mounting travel restrictions, and terminated professional relationships.

Perhaps nowhere is this reputational threat more evident than in sanctions-related matters, where government authorities are largely provided free reign to impose such highly public, extrajudicial measures that immediately and disproportionally impact a target’s commercial interests and lifestyle.

As such, it is essential that any sanctions practice effectively manage not only the direct legal threats posed by government enforcement, but also the parallel reputational harms that often arise for targeted HNWIs.

The role of counsel

In this evolving period of international investigations and enforcement, the role of legal counsel is both more complex and more essential than ever.

Lawyers must combine expertise in criminal, regulatory, and civil enforcement regimes, with fluency in cross-border practices and public relations. Moreover, counsel must also manage clients who are often unfamiliar with the executive nature of sanctions and/or economic enforcement actions that may be imposed by government authorities.

Put simply, a compartmentalised or purely reactive approach to government enforcement is no longer adequate. Faced with this new enforcement landscape, legal counsel must adopt a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach in order to ensure that their clients’ interests – whether commercial, personal, or reputational – are fully protected.