High Court Rules in Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund Case against James Hadley and associates.

In a High Court judgment in 2023 , Judge Mr. Nicholas Thompsell found that the Cayman-Islands based Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund (TMAF) was involved in an illegal conspiracy to “extract commissions from the investments.” The defendants, who were also behind the 2013 Store First pension investment scam, were found guilty of acting together to establish TMAF and deceive investors.

The claimant, Doran & Minehane, the liquidator of TMAF, argued that the investments were uncommercial transactions, potentially fictitious, or involved undisclosed self-dealing benefiting the conspirators. The investments were designed to exploit and misappropriate pension funds for the defendants’ benefit.

The judge determined a deliberate intention to harm TMAF, stating that the arrangements aimed to generate commissions for the conspirators at the fund’s expense. The accused faced a range of serious accusations, including breach of financial services regulation, fiduciary duties, and involvement in unlawful means conspiracy.

The victims, who suffered significant losses due to these schemes, have our sympathy. The court’s judgment establishes solid principles of liability, which may lead to a faster receipt of claimed monies and reduced legal costs for the defendants.

For the full judgment, click here: High Court Rules in Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund Case against James Hadley and associates.

What’s happened since?

A let off for Hadley and others?

Victims of Trafalgar multi-asset have received the following communication from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)

I am the Case Controller responsible for the Serious Fraud Office’s (“SFO”) investigation into the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund (“TMAF”), the Capita Oak Pension Scheme (“COPS”), the Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme (“HRBS”), and Self-Invested Personal Pensions (“SIPPs”) sold through Sycamore Crown Ltd, Jackson Francis Ltd, TPS Land, CLP Brokers or PFR Services – together known as Operation Hazel.

I am writing to update you on this matter.

Charges
On 24 July 2025, the SFO charged the following suspects with the following offences:
1. Toby WHITTAKER:
•       Conspiracy to defraud in respect of SIPPs, covering the period 8 December 2010 to 12 May 2014, contrary to common law.
2. Stephen Michael TALBOT:
•       Conspiracy to defraud in respect of SIPPs, covering the period 8 December 2010 to 12 May 2014, contrary to common law.
•       Money laundering, covering the period 27 November 2012 to 1 May 2013, contrary to Section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
•       A Perjury Act offence, on 21 January 2016, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Perjury Act 1911.
3. Stuart GREHAN (also known as Stuart CHAPMAN-CLARK):
•       Conspiracy to defraud in respect of SIPPs, covering the period 8 December 2010 to 12 May 2014, contrary to common law.
•       A Perjury Act Offence, on 7 November 2016, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Perjury Act 1911.
•       A Perjury Act Offence, on 9 November 2016, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Perjury Act 1911.
4. Terence WRIGHT:
•       Conspiracy to defraud in respect of SIPPs, covering the period 8 December 2010 to 12 May 2014, contrary to common law.
5. Emma Grehan (also known as Emma Hawkins):
•       Conspiracy to defraud in respect of SIPPs, covering the period 8 December 2010 to 12 May 2014, contrary to common law.
A sixth defendant has been charged with money laundering, covering the period 27 November 2012 to 1 May 2013, contrary to Section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Closure of COPS, HRBS and TMAF strands of the investigation
On 24 July 2025, following our latest review of the investigation, and in accordance with The Code for Crown Prosecutors, the SFO concluded that the COPS, HRBS and TMAF strands of Operation Hazel should be closed. The closure of these strands of Operation Hazel means that they will no longer be investigated or prosecuted by the SFO.

What this means for you

You are a TMAF investor. The closure of the TMAF strand of Operation Hazel therefore means that you will no longer be considered a victim in this case. I have also explained below why Victims’ Right to Review does not apply in this case.

I realise that this decision may be disappointing for you. I want to assure you that the SFO does not take these decisions lightly and we do appreciate the impact such decisions can have on those affected. To help explain this decision, I have set out below more detail about how The Code for Crown Prosecutors works.
How charging decisions are reached

In simple terms, The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a two-stage test:
1. Evidential Test:
Is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge? The prosecutor must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

2. Public Interest Test:
Is a prosecution in the public interest? In most cases, this will only be considered after the evidential test is met. However, there will be cases where it is clear, prior to reviewing all the evidence, that the public interest does not require a prosecution. In these instances, prosecutors may decide that the case should not proceed further.

Only when both stages of the test are met is a decision reached to charge an individual with an offence. In this case, the SFO has decided that the COPS, HRBS and TMAF strands of Operation Hazel should not proceed further for public interest reasons.

A full copy of The Code for Crown Prosecutors can be found at The Code for Crown Prosecutors.
Victims’ Right to Review

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (November 2020) (the “Victims’ Code”) sets out the level of service a victim of crime should expect to receive from criminal justice organisations. The SFO is a named “service provider” in the Victims’ Code and is therefore bound to deliver those rights of service to victim investors in our cases. A full copy of the Victims’ Code can be found at The Victims’ Code.

Right 6 of the Victims’ Code allows victims the right to ask the SFO to review a decision to end a formal investigation or prosecution in its entirety.

In this case, we have decided to charge the individuals outlined above. This means that charges are being brought in respect of some allegations made against some suspects. As a result, the Victims’ Right to Review does not apply with respect to the closure of the COPS, HRBS and TMAF strands of the investigation. For more information, the SFO’s policy on Victims’ Right to Review can be found at SFO Policy on Victims’ Right to Review.

Further information and support
For more information on organisations who can offer support and organisations who offer advice on financial matters, please visit our website: Information for victims and witnesses.

If you would like the SFO to refer you for support from your local Police and Crime Commissioner commissioned victim support service, please email our Victim and Witness Care Team on witness.care@sfo.gov.uk.

If your investment was made through an independent financial advisor registered with the Financial Conduct Authority, it may be possible for you to claim compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

COPS or HRBS
If your investment was made through COPS or HRBS, you may be eligible for compensation through Dalriada Trustees Limited, who are the independent trustee for both schemes. For more information, please see their website www.dalriadatrustees.co.uk and the following links:
•       The Capita Oak Pension Scheme – The Capita Oak Pension Scheme – Dalriada Trustees.
•       Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme – Henley Retirement Benefit Scheme – Dalriada Trustees.

TMAF
If your investment was made through TMAF, there were civil court proceedings in 2023 between the liquidators of the Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited and others. DM Financial (previously Doran + Minehane) are the liquidators for TMAF and they can be contacted for further information if you believe you may be affected. Please see their website www.dmfinancial.com.

Statement on Toby Whittaker

Upon news of the SFO proceedings, Toby Whittaker’s defence lawyer, Anthony
Barnfather, confirmed his client vehemently denies any wrongdoing in relation to the
ongoing proceedings and will fully contest the allegations made against him.

Mr Whittaker added:

“I am both shocked and saddened to find myself subject to these proceedings. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not accept the allegations brought against me.

While I am limited in what I can say due to the ongoing legal process, I have always believed in what we were trying to achieve, both for the investors and the business.

The longevity and success in the storage market is testament to that. I have acted in good faith and the business in question remains fully operational, with assets that continue to perform and generate value.

I have full confidence in the British legal system and I trust that, in due course, the facts will speak for themselves. I will engage fully and transparently with the judicial process, and I remain committed to clearing my name.”

No further comment will be made at this stage.