Britain’s housing crisis dominates headlines daily. Young families are priced out of the market. A generation locked out of homeownership. Meanwhile, in Mayfair, 19 prime properties sit at the centre of one of the largest alleged fraud cases in modern history — worth billions — yet effectively untouchable by the foreign courts trying to recover them for victims.
Welcome to the world of the ‘Immovables Rule’, a centuries-old legal principle that’s become the ultimate insurance policy for the globally wealthy facing inconvenient questions about where their money came from.
Last November, the UK Supreme Court reaffirmed this obscure doctrine in Kireeva v Bedzhamov, a case involving Russian businessman Georgy Bedzhamov and allegations of embezzlement from a collapsed bank. The Court ruled that foreign bankruptcy trustees cannot seize English real estate — even when appointed by recognised courts to recover assets for defrauded creditors. The practical effect? Property located on English soil remains untouchable. No matter the scale of alleged wrongdoing. No matter how many victims are left unpaid.
Within weeks, lawyers were citing the precedent in cases involving staggering sums. Saudi businessman Maan Al-Sanea, whose Saad Group collapsed in 2009 amid fraud allegations that various sources estimated between $10-16 billion, successfully used the ruling to complicate efforts by Saudi-appointed trustees to recover his extensive Mayfair portfolio.
The message to the world’s ultra-wealthy is unambiguous: if you’re going to face serious financial allegations, make sure you’ve got property in London first.
When Old Laws Meet New Money
The Immovables Rule wasn’t designed as a billionaire’s escape hatch. It emerged from a sensible premise: if you’re buying land in England, you shouldn’t need to worry about property laws in dozens of foreign countries. English land, English rules.
But we’re no longer living in that world. Today’s wealthy operate through labyrinthine offshore structures — companies registered in Belize, Seychelles, the British Virgin Islands — specifically designed to obscure who actually owns what. They can move billions across borders with a few keystrokes while their lawyers invoke Victorian-era property doctrines to keep assets safe from foreign authorities.
The asymmetry is striking. Consider an ordinary British homeowner who falls behind on their mortgage or council tax. Enforcement is swift, mechanical, unforgiving. There are no procedural labyrinths to navigate, no centuries-old rules to invoke for protection.
Yet when billions in allegedly fraudulent assets are at stake? The legal system transforms into an obstacle course that only those with vast resources can successfully navigate. Even when fraud claims remain active and courts have frozen assets, the sheer cost and complexity of pursuing alternative legal routes creates practical immunity.
The Real Cost of Legal Complexity
Here’s what the debate about ‘taxing the rich’ misses: it’s not just about what the wealthy won’t contribute. It’s about what they’re allowed to keep even when foreign courts — operating under internationally recognised legal frameworks — have determined those assets should compensate victims.
But here’s the reality: those alternative routes require years of expensive High Court litigation. Legal fees alone can run into millions. For trustees representing pension funds, collapsed banks, or ordinary creditors, the question becomes: can we afford to pursue this? Will the recovered assets even cover the legal costs?
Meanwhile, defendants with deep pockets can fund defensive litigation indefinitely. They don’t need to win outright — they just need to make recovery so expensive and time-consuming that claimants give up or run out of money first.
This is how wealth creates functional immunity without requiring explicit legal protection. The rules may be the same on paper, but accessing justice requires resources that only one side possesses.
London: The Laundromat That Won’t Admit It
Britain has spent years defensively insisting it’s not a haven for dirty money. Unexplained Wealth Orders were introduced. Beneficial ownership registers were debated. Politicians gave stern speeches about financial transparency.
Yet the Immovables Rule sits there, untouched, creating exactly the kind of environment that makes London attractive to wealth that might not survive scrutiny elsewhere.
Research by Transparency International suggests billions of pounds worth of UK property has been purchased with suspect funds. The Immovables Rule doesn’t just fail to address this — it actively facilitates it.
The incentive structure is perverse: commit financial crime internationally, use proceeds to acquire prime London real estate through opaque corporate structures, then relocate to the UK when authorities start asking questions. Once you’re here with property in your (corporate) name, centuries-old English law becomes your shield.
Foreign courts can rule against you. Trustees can be appointed to recover assets for victims. None of it matters if the assets are bricks and mortar in Belgravia or Mayfair.
A Two-Tier System
The current discourse around wealth inequality focuses heavily on taxation — closing loopholes, ensuring the rich pay their share, funding public services. All worthy goals.
But the Immovables Rule reveals a deeper injustice: the legal system itself functions differently depending on your bank balance.
If you’re an ordinary person facing a £10,000 debt, bailiffs can seize your possessions. If you’re facing allegations involving billions, your legal team can construct procedural barriers that make recovery prohibitively expensive — even when you haven’t been cleared of wrongdoing, even when courts have frozen your assets.
This isn’t equal justice with different outcomes. It’s a fundamentally different process that only wealth can access.
Parliament could fix this tomorrow. Other common law jurisdictions have created statutory exceptions for serious financial crime cases. Britain has existing frameworks — Section 423 claims, Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations — that could be strengthened and streamlined.
Courts cannot rewrite centuries of common law. If the rule is to change, Parliament must act.
What Needs to Happen
Reform doesn’t require revolutionary legislation. It requires political will to acknowledge that an 18th-century property doctrine has become a 21st-century shield for allegedly corrupt wealth.
Parliament should:
Close the loophole: Create clear exceptions to the Immovables Rule for recognised foreign insolvency proceedings involving credible allegations of serious financial crime.
Reduce complexity barriers: Streamline alternative recovery mechanisms so pursuing legitimate claims doesn’t require unlimited legal budgets.
Mandate transparency: Require beneficial ownership disclosure for all UK property to prevent offshore structures from obscuring control.
Enable cooperation: Expand international frameworks so London isn’t the obvious choice for parking assets when foreign authorities come calling.
The irony is thick. As Britain debates wealth taxes and economic justice, it maintains legal structures that actively protect billions in allegedly fraudulent assets from legitimate recovery efforts. We argue about making the rich pay more while letting them keep what foreign courts say was never theirs to begin with.
The Bottom Line
London didn’t become a global financial centre by accident. The rule of law, property rights, stable institutions — these matter. But rule of law shouldn’t mean rules that functionally apply differently based on wealth.
Right now, if you’re wealthy enough to own Mayfair property and hire elite legal counsel, centuries-old doctrine can shield your assets from foreign authorities — even when those authorities have been appointed by recognised courts to recover funds for fraud victims.
If you’re not? The full weight of legal enforcement applies swiftly and without mercy.
The Immovables Rule has transformed from a sensible property law principle into a procedural weapon that only money can wield effectively. While Britain’s “tax the rich” debate rages on, this quieter injustice continues: billions protected, victims uncompensated, and Parliament doing nothing.
If the current government is serious about economic justice and Britain’s reputation as a responsible financial centre, closing this loophole isn’t optional. It’s essential.
Because the world is watching. And the message we’re currently sending is clear: bring your billions to London. We’ll keep them safe.