Freezing Assets in the UAE: How the DIFC and ADGM Courts Combat Cross-Border Fraud

5 min 42 sec

Written by

Rita Jaballah

Partner, Head of International Litigation

r.jaballah@tamimi.com

Daniel McCarthy

Of Counsel

d.mccarthy@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Kareem Bessisso

Senior Associate

k.bessisso@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

Romina Hashemi

R.Hashemi@tamimi.com View LinkedIn Profile

In a series of rulings in 2025 and 2026, the UAE’s common law courts have affirmed their power to assist parties affected by cross-border fraud and other wrongdoings. The DIFC and ADGM courts have confirmed their jurisdiction to grant ancillary injunctions and disclosure orders in aid of foreign proceedings.

Following a period of inconsistent decisions on the extent of the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction and powers, the courts are now moving towards a settled position. This ensures that the UAE’s courts are a central part of the network of international commercial courts with the power and willingness to support financial institutions and other entities in making significant recoveries in the event of cross-border fraud.

Orders made by the UAE’s common law courts can be used in conjunction with the powers of the UAE’s onshore courts to provide effective remedies for the freezing of assets and the obtaining of information. The UAE’s common law courts thereby augment and complement the onshore courts. These powers can be combined by litigants to secure and enforce judgments and awards in proceedings from around the world.

Al Tamimi & Co has been at the forefront of these developments. In Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC (date), Al Tamimi secured the first worldwide freezing order and proprietary injunction issued by the DIFC courts’ Digital Economy Court. The order sought to preserve over $450 million in support of fraud claims in Hong Kong.

In Market Financial Solutions Ltd v Raja (date), Al Tamimi secured a £1.3 billion worldwide freezing order issued by the DIFC courts, acting for the successful applicant in support of breach of fiduciary duty claims in respect of a substantial mortgage finance fraud in the English Commercial Court.

In Techteryx Ltd v IG Limited (date), Al Tamimi obtained orders under the court’s jurisdiction to make Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders requiring an online trading company to provide disclosure showing what had happened to around $50 million of misappropriated monies received by it.

Recent cases in the DIFC and ADGM

On 14 March 2025, Dubai Law No. (2) of 2025 Concerning Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025) entered into force. The power of DIFC courts to hear and determine applications for interim or precautionary measures related to applications and claims brought outside the DIFC is stipulated in Article 15(4) of the law.

DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 expressly grants DIFC courts jurisdiction to hear applications for interim measures in relation to foreign proceedings. Article 31(4) of the law also sets out provisions on the courts’ jurisdiction to enforce judgments, orders, and decisions issued by local or foreign courts, and arbitral tribunals.

The enactment of DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 has triggered arguments as to whether these provisions have changed the extent of the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction and powers to grant interim relief in support of proceedings, or to enforce foreign judgments and arbitral awards. At first instance in the DIFC courts, there have been conflicting approaches, with some judges seeking to reassert limits on the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction within the DIFC.

These attempts have sought to re-open the earlier DIFC Court of Appeal decision in Carmon v Cuenda (26 November 2024). In Carmon, the Court of Appeal confirmed the DIFC courts’ jurisdiction and power to grant interim remedies, including a freezing order, in support of a prospective judgment of a foreign court that may be amenable to recognition and enforcement in the DIFC courts. The decision in Carmon itself had overturned prior Court of Appeal authority in Sandra Holding (6 September 2023), which had reached the opposite conclusion.

The prevailing view confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Trafigura Pte Ltd v Gupta (22 September 2025) is that DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 has not affected the previous position. At first instance, the court had refused to grant a UAE-wide freezing order, on the basis that Article 31 introduced a new administration of enforcement that requires an asset, or something akin to an asset, to exist within the DIFC at the time of enforcement. This was overturned on appeal.

In Techteryx Ltd v ARIA Commodities DMCC (17 October 2025), Justice Michael Black KC independently reached the same conclusions at first instance. He held that the objective statutory intention of Article 15(4) of DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 was for there not to be a radical departure from the principles which had been previously articulated by the DIFC courts, and that precautionary measures were not confined to assets within the DIFC. Justice Michael Black KC reached the same conclusion in continuing a freezing injunction in Quortia Ltd v Irrling (16 January 2026).

In Ostin v Oleda (25 November 2025), the court made directions that a Part 50 enforcement order (to obtain information from a judgment debtor) should be limited to assets within the DIFC. In a more recent decision of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke in Taylor v Affi (11 March 2026), Ostin was held to be wrongly decided and without reference to the binding authority of Trafigura. There is no need for assets to be within the DIFC for the DIFC courts to recognise and enforce a foreign judgement.

In Orabelle v Orzenia (30 January 2026), the DIFC courts declined to grant a freezing order in support of an arbitration which was not seated in the DIFC, because the applicant had not identified an asset within the DIFC. However, in another more recent decision, Ovya v Oshie (24 April 2026), Justice Mark Pelling KC held that Orabelle had been decided per incuriam of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Trafigura and should not be followed.

In Market Financial Solutions Ltd v Raja (21 April 2026), the DIFC courts again affirmed their jurisdiction to grant freezing injunctions in respect of assets in onshore Dubai and worldwide, where it is appropriate to do so. The court was bound to follow Trafigura.

Finally, the Court of Appeal in Orlagh v Orchard (6 May 2026), in line with Trafigura, held that the jurisdiction conferred by Article 31(4) is not constrained to enforcement action concerning assets within the DIFC and does not constrain the scope of the power in aid of that jurisdiction which is conferred by Part 50. The decision in Orabelle was not to be followed insofar as it had held that the breadth of the jurisdiction was more limited. The Court of Appeal re-asserted this approach in Oqab v Oorhna (3 June 2026) and declined to reopen the decision in Orlagh.

The alignment of the positions of the ADGM and DIFC courts was confirmed in A17 v B17 (21 February 2025). In that case, a worldwide freezing order was made in support of an unsatisfied arbitration award made in London Court of International Arbitration proceedings. The ADGM courts confirmed their powers to award worldwide freezing orders, and other interim remedies, in support of prospective enforcement proceedings. The ADGM courts were persuaded by reasoning in Carmon, and also found that it should be followed as a matter of comity between the common law courts of the UAE’s financial free zones.