Print this article

Financial Hide-And-Seek: The Cost Of Non-Disclosure In Divorce

Sarah Jane Lenihan

8 October 2026

The following article comes from Sarah Jane Lenihan (pictured below), a partner at law firm EWCA Civ 962, the dispute centred on allegations concerning substantial undisclosed resources and the ownership of the former matrimonial home through arrangements involving IIB Group Holdings, a company in which Mr Ahmad held a majority interest.

At first instance, the wife was awarded a lump sum of approximately £6 million ($7.92 million), in part on the basis of a finding that Mr Ahmad had access to around £16 million in disputed accounts. The judge also made orders requiring the bank to provide housing for the wife and the children.  

In July 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the wife, the husband and IIB. It held that the cumulative effect of procedural unfairness and deficiencies in the fact-finding meant that the key findings could not safely stand and ordered a full retrial before a different judge. This trial is yet to take place and therefore the case remains unresolved. It is a stark illustration of how alleged non-disclosure can derail finality: had the relevant documents and explanations been provided fully and tested at the proper stage, the issues might have been narrowed earlier and a costly retrial potentially avoided. 

At the heart of every financial remedy case in England and Wales lies a simple principle: each party has a continuing duty to provide full and frank disclosure of their financial circumstances. Whether the parties are negotiating through their advisers or asking the court to determine the outcome, a fair resolution depends upon an accurate and complete picture of the available resources. Without that foundation, the entire process is undermined. 

While allegations of hidden wealth tend to attract headlines when they involve substantial fortunes, the principle applies equally regardless of the size of the asset base. The duty of disclosure is not optional. It is a continuing obligation that extends throughout proceedings and requires parties to update information as circumstances change during the process. 

For wealthy individuals, there can sometimes be a misconception that sophisticated asset structures provide a degree of insulation from scrutiny. The family court has extensive powers to investigate financial arrangements. Disclosure exercises are increasingly forensic in nature and may involve detailed examination of company accounts, trust documentation, banking records, tax returns and international financial arrangements. Independent experts, forensic accountants and valuation specialists are often instructed to assist. 

Attempts to obscure the true financial picture can take many forms. 

Common warning signs that could indicate incomplete disclosure include: 

-- moving funds repeatedly between multiple bank accounts, creating a long and complicated trail that must be reconstructed from disorganised bank statements and records; 
-- transferring money offshore or failing to identify foreign accounts and assets, which may require cross-border disclosure and specialist tracing; 
-- using cryptocurrency holdings or digital wallets without giving a complete account of the platforms, wallets and transaction history; 
-- moving into an apparently lower-paid role while failing to disclose a golden handshake or deferred bonus; and 
-- incurring substantial debts shortly before separation, requiring careful examination of where borrowed funds went and whether the debts are genuine. 

These examples each tend to generate their own documentary footprint and can instead prompt closer scrutiny. The movement of funds through multiple accounts is itself a feature of the disputed financial picture in the Ahmad litigation, demonstrating how attempts to complicate the trail may lengthen, rather than avoid, investigation. 

As Faraj v Ahmad shows, the risks of non-disclosure extend far beyond the immediate proceedings. If a court later concludes that material information was concealed or that misleading evidence was provided, orders may be revisited even after they have been made. The finality that many divorcing couples seek can quickly disappear, leading to years of additional litigation, uncertainty and expense. 

What may begin as a dispute over disclosure can evolve into a prolonged and highly contentious battle involving appeals, expert investigations and multiple hearings. Legal fees can escalate dramatically, and time that could have been spent rebuilding personal and professional lives becomes consumed by litigation. 

For business owners and entrepreneurs, there is a further commercial consideration. Lengthy disputes can divert management attention, generate reputational concerns and create uncertainty around business interests. In some cases, extensive litigation can have indirect consequences that exceed the value of the underlying dispute. 

The case also highlights the importance of planning before difficulties arise. Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, properly prepared wealth structures and well-maintained financial records can significantly reduce the scope for dispute if a relationship breaks down. High net worth individuals should ensure that asset ownership, trust arrangements and business interests are documented clearly and reviewed regularly. Good record-keeping is often just as important as good legal advice when allegations of non-disclosure emerge years later. 

Lawyers, wealth managers, accountants and family office professionals should encourage clients to approach disclosure strategically, but transparently. Strategic disclosure does not mean revealing as little as possible. Rather, it means presenting financial information clearly, accurately and comprehensively in a way that allows the issues in dispute to be identified and resolved efficiently. 

Frequently, clients fear that openness will weaken their negotiating position. The opposite is often true. A party who is seen as cooperative, transparent and credible is generally better placed to negotiate effectively and reach a durable settlement. By contrast, even the perception of concealment can create distrust, increase scrutiny and harden positions. 

Where a dispute reaches a final hearing, dishonesty can be particularly damaging. Family court judges exercise a wide discretion when determining financial claims following divorce and inevitably form views about the credibility of the parties before them. A litigant who is found to have concealed information risks doing far more than damaging their reputation; they may significantly weaken the overall outcome of their case. 

Transparency is particularly important where assets are held through corporate entities, trusts or international structures. These arrangements may be entirely legitimate and necessary for commercial, succession-planning or tax purposes. However, they must be explainable and supported by appropriate documentation. Advisors should ask themselves a straightforward question: would this structure withstand detailed examination by a family court judge? If the answer is uncertain, further information may be required. 

Finally, there is also a broader lesson about settlement durability. HNW individuals often place great emphasis on securing certainty and protecting wealth for future generations. Those objectives are unlikely to be achieved where disclosure is incomplete or questionable. Financial arrangements that cannot withstand scrutiny are vulnerable to challenge. By contrast, settlements reached following comprehensive disclosure are far more likely to provide the finality that separating couples seek. 

The family justice system places increasing importance on transparency, accountability and fairness. While headline-grabbing cases may involve allegations of hidden millions, the underlying message is much simpler: divorce should not become a game of financial hide-and-seek. 

For individuals facing divorce, and the advisors supporting them, the most effective strategy remains the same: disclose fully, explain clearly and approach the process with honesty. The short-term temptation to withhold information may appear attractive, but the long-term consequences can be devastating. In many cases, the cost, both financially and emotionally, of attempting to outsmart the system will far outweigh any perceived financial advantage. 

Ultimately, wealth preservation in divorce is not achieved through concealment. It is achieved through careful planning, transparent financial management and sound professional advice. Structures may be complex, but disclosure should not be.