Mutual Legal Assistance advice for persons concerned in high-profile criminal investigation in Iceland

0 Comments

The firm represented two high-profile Icelandic businessmen in connection with mutual legal assistance requests made by the Icelandic Special Prosecutor to the UK Serious Fraud Office arising from an Icelandic fraud investigation relating to the country’s banking collapse. The firm succeeded in challenging the execution of a search warrant at one of the clients’ home […]

Extradition request for Evgeny Chichvarkin

0 Comments

Peters & Peters successfully represented Evgeny Chichvarkin, the Russian mobile telephones tycoon whose extradition was sought by the Russian Federation. Chichvarkin rose to prominence in Russia as co-founder of the mobile telephones retailer Euroset. He is well known as an ardent advocate of the free market. In 2008 he took up a senior appointment in […]

Mutual legal assistance request leading to judicial review of the Secretary of State

0 Comments

The firm represented a number of individuals whose names appeared in documents that had been provided to the SFO in response to a Latvian mutual legal assistance request relating to a complex corruption investigation in Latvia, which the clients contended was politically motivated. Peters & Peters instigated a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s […]

Momentous Extradition Case reaches the Supreme Court: HH and PH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 24

0 Comments

Peters & Peters acted for Justice, an independent human rights and law reform organisation, on an intervention to the Supreme Court in two extradition appeals. The case involved three joint appeals (two from England and one from Scotland). The warrants were issued by the Italian courts in the case of HH and PH, and by […]

Advice in relation to a dispute concerning a sale of a privately-owned software company

0 Comments

Peters & Peters represented the founders and former owners of a software company that had been sold to a major international PLC. A part of the consideration for sale (measured in millions of pounds) was deferred under an earn-out arrangement, subject to certain targets being met. Following the acquisition, a dispute arose in relation to […]

Finding of corruption in litigation against Bernie Ecclestone concerning sale of Formula One

0 Comments

The firm represented German media group Constantin Medien in a much-publicised claim against Formula One magnate Ecclestone alleging that he and others deliberately undervalued the sport when it was sold to a private equity company in 2005. After a 6 week trial, the judge ruled in favour of Ecclestone in relation to causation, but found […]

Instructed by a FTSE 100 company to conduct an internal investigation

0 Comments

We have been instructed by a FTSE 100 company to conduct an internal investigation. We assisted in determining the scope of the investigation and the data lockdown; the collection, review and analysis of data and interviewing employees.

Peters & Peters acted for the former Managing Director of a global security and protection company

0 Comments

Peters & Peters represented a Managing Director of a global security company, who pleaded guilty to fraud on her former employer, to the value of just under £100,000. An early guilty plea and detailed representations on mitigating factors resulted in the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment. A confidential settlement was negotiated with the […]

Firm works with overseas counsel to avoid extradition by successfully challenging domestic Italian arrest warrant

0 Comments

The firm acted for four businessmen subject to a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Italian authorities in relation to the Italian offence of ‘fraudulent bankruptcy’ following the insolvency and collapse of certain Italian companies of which the individuals were directors. Peters & Peters worked closely with the clients’ Italian lawyers to bring a challenge […]

Most complex EU sanctions case ever

0 Comments

Peters & Peters are instructed by 109 individuals and 12 corporate entities based in Zimbabwe to challenge the EU imposed sanctions against them. The case raises a number of interesting arguments concerning the rights of defence and the legal basis for imposing restrictive measures as part of EU’s foreign policy objective.