“Knowing receipt requires knowledge making retention unconscionable - unified unconscionability test established.”
BCCI's liquidators claimed against Akindele who received payments as part of a fraudulent share support scheme. Akindele argued he lacked sufficient knowledge of the fraud.
What degree of knowledge is required to establish liability for knowing receipt of trust property transferred in breach of trust.
The Court of Appeal held Akindele liable, establishing that knowing receipt requires knowledge that makes retention of the benefit unconscionable.
Simplified and clarified the knowing receipt doctrine by replacing complex categorization with practical unconscionability test. Remains the leading authority for accessory liability.
You're reading the free summary of Knowing Receipt — BCCI v Akindele. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch 437
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.