header-logo header-logo

27 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Boiler-room fraudsters

Two men who perpetrated one of the largest boiler-room shares fraud schemes ever pursued by a UK authority have been ordered to pay £11m in compensation.

Judge Gledhill QC, in Southwark Crown Court, told Jeffrey Revell-Reade, 51, to pay £10,751,000 and Anthony May, 60, to pay £250,000. The pair sold shares in US-listed companies from Madrid, but when investors came to sell the shares they found they were worthless, placed in shell companies or in companies not operating. Both men must pay up within three months or go to prison: ten years for Revell-Reade and three years for May.

Their convictions were linked to seven other individuals, also convicted and sentenced following a seven year investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

In June 2014, Revell-Reade was sentenced to a further eight years and six months in prison. May was sentenced to seven years and four months.

Mark Thompson, head of the SFO’s proceeds of crime division, says: “These individuals benefited substantially from their crimes. Their lavish lifestyles featured numerous overseas properties, wine collections and a luxury yacht. We welcome these orders which the pair now need to pay or face a further period of imprisonment.”

Joanna Dimmock, white collar defence specialist and senior associate at White & Case, says: “Following the recent Libor acquittals, the confiscation sums in this case may indicate much needed success for the SFO. However, on closer analysis, the sums agreed, in fact, suggest significant success for the defence.

“The SFO had been seeking to recover £43m from Revell-Reade. This would have been the biggest order it had ever obtained in such a case. The burden was on the defence to satisfy the SFO that their client did not have the hidden assets they claimed he possessed. This was a substantial hurdle that Revell-Reade's legal team were clearly able to meet and a much lower figure of £10.75m was ultimately agreed.”

Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll