FRAUDSTERS OPERATING IN THE GUISE OF OFFICIAL COURT ENFORCEMENT STAFF: £45,549 LOST: A WARNING TO ALL DEFENDANTS AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS HERE
A judgment debtor is in a vulnerable position. There are companies out there taking advantage of that vulnerability by pretending to be official enforcement agencies and taking money off the debtors. We have such a case reported here. The judge gives clear guidance as to the steps a judgment debtor should take before handing money over to anyone.
(The National Crime Agency reports that 41% of all crime in England and Wales is estimated to be fraud, and that 67% of fraud reported in the UK is cyber-enabled)
“… it was clear that this preliminary issue as to the validity of the Certificate could be resolved by consent between the parties. Namely, that this was a scam whereby an unknown third party bad-faith operator had approached the Defendant, impersonating the CNBC, in order to coerce a substantial payment on a fraudulent pretext of a temporary payment into court.”
“It is the identification of this scam that has led me to assemble my oral judgment into writing for publication. There is a public interest in highlighting the vulnerability of parties against whom a judgment has been entered, to fall prey to such fraudulent approaches. I neutrally observe that there is a broad societal trend away from the personal face-to-face service interactions and toward online automated service provision, increasingly via AI. Many predatory practices have emerged to fill the space that has been created.”
KEY PRACTICE POINTS
Clearly everyone needs to know that this kind of scam exists. It is worthwhile spreading this information to all clients and generally. The District Judge has set out eight steps that a prudent judgment debtor should take before paying any money over. We all have to be aware that fraudsters operate in this context and be very wary.
THE CASE
Associated Installations Ltd v All Asbestos Ltd [2025] EWCC 76, District Judge Worthley.
THE FACTS
The claimant entered judgment in default against the defendant and began enforcement proceedings. The defendant protested against enforcement on the grounds that they had already paid £45,549 to an enforcement agency.
WHAT HAPPENED IN A NUTSHELL
The defendant had in fact paid money to a fraudster. The money (is most probably) gone forever.
THE FRAUD IN MORE DETAIL
The defendant paid money out to what it believed was an official source and received a somewhat strange “Certificate of Cancellation and Certificate of Satisfaction”/ When the defendant was being pressed for payment it replied.
“I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to respectfully request clarification regarding the status of our claim [sic] on behalf of the defendant.
Under the guidance of the court and the court bailiff Mr Paul White, we acted in good faith to pay the agreed amount of £45,549.00 as proof of funds on 24/11/25, as we have a real prospect of defending this case. This payment was made on the understanding this would be honoured, and the judgement would be set aside and proof of funds returned to us “immediately” or within 2 days.
We have complied with the directions we received from the court in this regard. Please find attached Certificate of Cancellation and Certificate of Satisfaction dated 24/11/25 sealed by the court setting aside the judgement for 28 days, therefore we contest the formal objection from the claimant to overturn this decision.
I would like to bring to the Court’s attention that additional funds have been withdrawn from our business bank account under what we believe to be a third party debt order submitted by the claimant. This has significantly impacted our operating costs, therefore in the interests of justice and fairness, we request that these funds are unfrozen and returned to us so that we can prepare our defence.
Please therefore confirm that in accordance with the directions we were given, any enforcement proceedings in this matter are on hold, and that the proof of funds payment made by ourselves will now be returned.
We respectfully request an urgent update regarding this matter at your earliest convenience, as the situation is having an ongoing impact on our operations.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.”
Office Manager“
- That email appended a copy of a document purporting to be a “Certificate of Satisfaction or Cancellation of Judgment after Suspension Order” (“the Certificate”) dated 24 November 2025, set out on a slightly blurry Form N441A. The Certificate appeared to have 2 ink court seals and one further embossed court seal. However, those court seals featured the old St Edward’s Crown (chosen by Queen Elizabeth II following her Accession in 1952) rather than the current Tudor Crown which has been used in courts seals since the Spring of 2024. The court seals also had “The County Court” curving around the bottom of the seal rather than the top, which is the case on the new seal. The document purported to record that the judgment had been ‘set aside’ and that £45,549 had been paid as ‘proof of funds only’. The payment instructions were purportedly to a UKFOREX account.
THE DEFENDANT HAD IN FACT PAID MONEY TO A FRAUDSTER
27. Upon conclusion of Mr Drake’s evidence it was clear that this preliminary issue as to the validity of the Certificate could be resolved by consent between the parties. Namely, that this was a scam whereby an unknown third party bad-faith operator had approached the Defendant, impersonating the CNBC, in order to coerce a substantial payment on a fraudulent pretext of a temporary payment into court.
28. Needless to say, the £45,549 was not paid into court. The payment instruction given was for payment to an account purporting to be a UKFOREX LTD bank account. There is a high probability that the £45,549 payment has already been transferred out of the jurisdiction and will not be recovered directly by the Defendant, other than possibly via its bank or other independent mechanism. The Defendant has now approached its bank to investigate the possibility of recovery of the sum and is reporting itself to be the victim of a fraud. No approaches have yet been made to UKFOREX LTD. There is no certainty that UKFOREX LTD is even the genuine firm operating this account, there being a notice on the Financial Conduct Authority website documenting,
“Individuals are using the details of this firm to suggest they work for the genuine firm. We call this a cloned firm and it is typically part of a scam.”
29. It is the identification of this scam that has led me to assemble my oral judgment into writing for publication. There is a public interest in highlighting the vulnerability of parties against whom a judgment has been entered, to fall prey to such fraudulent approaches. I neutrally observe that there is a broad societal trend away from the personal face-to-face service interactions and toward online automated service provision, increasingly via AI. Many predatory practices have emerged to fill the space that has been created. The National Crime Agency reports that 41% of all crime in England and Wales is estimated to be fraud, and that 67% of fraud reported in the UK is cyber-enabled. [i] At this time of year, there are plentiful societal alerts to be aware of false ‘cold call’ approaches from scammers impersonating the Royal Mail or reputable delivery companies, who fraudulently seek payments for the purported delivery of Christmas parcels. The public at large are probably better appraised of such risks than they are of similar practices in the sphere of court judgments.
30. It is therefore wholly understandably that any small company or unrepresented individual unfamiliar with the court system might erroneously make a significant payment when faced with a sophisticated and aggressive approach. That was the case here. After all, legitimate regulated enforcement officer are correctly empowered to act swiftly and efficiently to enforce court judgments. A desire to avoid the same is readily exploited.
31. This judgment does not serve as formal guidance regarding such scams. Rather, it simply highlights some obvious common-sensical cross-checks for litigants to conduct if concerned about the veracity of any enforcement approach which may benefit the public at large;
- Be aware that the County Court will not ‘cold call’ any litigant demanding a payment of a judgment sum into court;
- Check the telephone number of any purported HMCTS building or staff member against the maintained telephone numbers on an official gov.uk website. For the CNBC, this can be found at https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc;
- Check the email address number of any purported HMCTS building or staff member against the maintained email addresses on an official gov.uk website. For the CNBC, this can be found at https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc. Such addresses should ordinarily end @justice.gov.uk;
- Check for obvious typographical errors in any email signature or header;
- Check that any court seal is the current seal featuring the Tudor Crown;
- Be aware of government guidance to stay vigilant against fraudsters posing as enforcement officers and bailiffs https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-bailiff-and-enforcement-officer-scam;
- In the event that an individual is claiming to be a bailiff or enforcement officer, cross check their details against the Certificated Bailiff Register maintained by the government online at https://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/;
- If in doubt, always consider seeking legal advice from a regulated lawyer or other verified sources of advice such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau or Advice Now.
- Had the Defendant followed any of these safeguards in this case, it may well have avoided falling prey to this particular fraud.
You must be logged in to post a comment.