Shoosmiths LLP

Dispute resolution and litigation

Daren is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution and Litigation team and has over 30 years experience in acting for financial institutions, large corporations, Governments and individuals in relation to complex investigations, litigation, regulatory enforcement proceedings and legal and regulatory compliance.

Daren regularly advises clients on matters relating to fraud, bribery, corruption and money laundering. He assisted the Ministry of Justice in drafting the Guidance on the Bribery Act 2010. he has also advised the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group on the Guidance Notes for the financial services sector.

Notable cases/matters include:

• acting for the Bank in N v The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2019] EWHC 1770 (Comm) and in NCA v N and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2017] EWCA Civ 253; • acting for the Bank in Property Alliance Group Limited v The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC in the first major Court of Appeal decision on LIBOR manipulation and Interest rate hedging products [2018] EWCA Civ 355; • acting as a Section 166 skilled person in connection with the widely publicised mis-selling of Interest Rate Hedging products to non- sophisticated customers, including designing the methodology of the file reviews, designing customer communications, recruiting and training a team of file reviewers, reviewing customer files, attending skilled persons forums at the FCA and determining redress for customers; • advising a large international Bank on anti-money laundering compliance across 22 jurisdictions; • advising on proposed deferred Prosecution agreements; • advising over 60 individuals in relation to a complex FCA investigation into a firms anti-money laundering systems and controls; • advising a payment services firm on its anti-money laundering systems and controls following an FCA visit and advising on subsequent VREQ; • acting for the bank in the seminal case of Jayesh Shah & Another v HSBC Private Bank [2009] EWHC 79 (QB), and [2010] EWCA Civ 31, [2011] EWCA Civ 1154, [2012] EWHC 1283(QB) in a US$300 million claim brought by two former customers. The claim arose out of the Bank's alleged wrongful delay in processing four payment instructions and refusal to provide information, due to (1) its making of authorised disclosures to the relevant authorities under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 when it suspected money laundering and (2) the tipping off provisions in the Act. This is the leading case in relation to Banks and their obligations to file Suspicious Activity Reports and the outcome received a significant amount of commentary; and • acting for the bank in Stone and Another v National Westminster Bank and Paul Aplin [2013] EWCH 208 (CH). This case was a claim against the Bank arising out of a significant Ponzi scheme and has been widely reported.