Asset freezing and Mareva injunctions are among the most powerful interim remedies available in Banking & Finance Disputes, designed to prevent defendants from dissipating assets before a judgment or arbitral award can be enforced. As commercial disputes increasingly span multiple jurisdictions, Mareva injunctions have become an essential tool for lenders, investors, corporates and private capital platforms seeking to secure claims and preserve recoverability. In the UAE, these remedies are available through onshore courts, the DIFC and the ADGM, each with its own procedural nuances. Understanding how to obtain, enforce and defend against asset freezing orders is critical for parties engaged in high value financial litigation, fraud claims, cross border lending disputes and complex enforcement scenarios.
A Mareva injunction is a court order that prohibits a defendant from disposing of, transferring or diminishing the value of their assets pending final determination of a dispute. Its purpose is not to give the claimant security over the assets but to prevent the defendant from frustrating any future judgment. Because this remedy is intrusive and may severely impact business operations, courts impose strict criteria and require full and frank disclosure from applicants. Mareva injunctions may apply to assets worldwide or only within the jurisdiction of the issuing court, depending on statutory powers and the claimant’s evidence of risk.
Courts generally grant Mareva injunctions only where there is credible evidence of dishonesty, fraud, asset dissipation or deliberate attempts to avoid obligations. In banking and finance disputes, they are commonly sought in cases involving loan defaults combined with suspicious fund transfers, misappropriation of secured assets, diversion of receivables, sham transactions or refusal to disclose financial information. They are also used in enforcement of foreign judgments, investor fraud, crypto asset dissipation, breach of fiduciary duties and situations involving nominee or offshore structures designed to conceal ownership.
Although each jurisdiction has its own formulation, courts generally require applicants to demonstrate three key elements:
Applicants must provide detailed financial evidence, bank records, transaction trails, corporate documents or witness statements showing suspicious transfers or asset restructuring. Full and frank disclosure is essential, particularly when the injunction is sought without notice to the defendant. Claimants may also be required to provide a cross undertaking in damages to compensate the defendant if the injunction is later found to be unjustified.
DIFC and ADGM courts are recognised for their flexibility and effectiveness in granting freezing orders, including worldwide Mareva injunctions. These courts frequently support international arbitration and cross border enforcement by issuing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings. Both jurisdictions apply common law principles, making them particularly attractive for claimants seeking urgent relief in complex financial disputes. Once issued, DIFC or ADGM orders can be used as gateways for enforcement in onshore UAE courts subject to procedural requirements, significantly expanding their reach.
Onshore courts also offer asset freezing mechanisms, though the requirements and procedures differ from those in free zone jurisdictions. Claimants can seek precautionary attachment orders over bank accounts, real estate, vehicles, shares and other assets. To succeed, they must show a prima facie claim and a risk of asset dissipation. Onshore courts tend to issue attachments more readily in commercial debt claims, though the scope may be narrower than Mareva injunctions granted in free zones. These orders are powerful in securing domestic assets but may not extend automatically to assets abroad.
Worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) are available in DIFC and ADGM courts where jurisdiction is properly established. These orders are particularly important in cases involving offshore companies, multi jurisdictional lending structures or foreign assets. However, obtaining a WFO is only the first step; enforcement requires cooperation of foreign courts and compliance with local procedural rules. Claimants must coordinate with legal teams in multiple jurisdictions to identify assets, lodge recognition applications and prevent defendants from exploiting legal loopholes or asset protection strategies.
Defendants can challenge asset freezing orders on several grounds, including lack of urgency, insufficient evidence of dissipation, weak merits of the underlying claim, procedural defects, or the claimant’s failure to make full and frank disclosure. Defendants may also argue that the injunction is overly broad, that it interferes with legitimate business operations or that it violates proportionality. In some cases, defendants provide security or undertakings to lift or vary the injunction. Where the injunction affects third party assets or trust structures, additional arguments regarding beneficial ownership and control may arise.
Once an asset freezing order is issued, immediate compliance is essential. Banks, custodians, brokers and intermediaries must freeze specified accounts or assets and prevent withdrawals. Defendants may be required to disclose worldwide assets, provide financial statements or deliver information about asset transfers. Breach of a freezing order can lead to contempt proceedings, fines or imprisonment, making early legal advice crucial. Claimants should promptly use disclosure to map assets, pursue enforcement strategies and prepare for subsequent litigation or settlement negotiations.
Mareva injunctions can fundamentally alter the dynamics of financial litigation by preserving assets and increasing settlement leverage. Claimants often use them alongside other tools such as Norwich Pharmacal orders, tracing claims, proprietary injunctions and requests for disclosure from financial institutions. For lenders, these remedies prevent dissipation of secured or pledged assets. For investors and creditors, they help secure recovery where fraud, misappropriation or insolvency risk is present. When deployed early and strategically, they form a critical part of an integrated dispute resolution approach.
Asset freezing and Mareva injunctions occupy a central role in high value banking and finance disputes, offering powerful protection against asset dissipation in fast moving and multi jurisdictional cases. Their effectiveness depends on rigorous evidence, precise drafting and careful coordination across courts. For parties operating in the UAE’s complex legal landscape, understanding the interplay between onshore, DIFC, ADGM and foreign jurisdictions is essential to securing and defending rights when significant assets are at stake.
