Real estate hidden through nominee owners: strategies for discovery

In high net worth divorce disputes real estate often forms the largest single component of the matrimonial pool. Increasingly I see property hidden behind nominee owners, corporate structures or offshore vehicles designed to frustrate discovery. In this guide I explain how I identify real estate concealed through nominees, the legal tools available in England and Wales, practical investigative techniques I deploy, and tactical tips that protect my clients’ financial position and reputation. I draw on courtroom practice, forensic methods and cross‑border strategies to give a clear road map you can use when you suspect property concealment.

Why nominee ownership matters in high net worth divorce cases

Nominee ownership means legal title sits with a person or entity who holds the asset on behalf of the true beneficial owner. Nominees can be family members, professional trustees, corporate nominees or nominee shareholder services. Nominee structures serve legitimate commercial needs such as privacy, estate planning and tax efficiency. However they also create opportunities to hide value from a spouse seeking a fair financial settlement. Courts in England and Wales look to substance rather than form. If the evidence shows one spouse retains the benefit or control of property the court can treat that property as part of the matrimonial resources. Spotting nominee arrangements early and pursuing targeted disclosure preserves bargaining power and avoids unfair outcomes.

Common nominee structures used to conceal property

Understanding common structures helps you predict where to look. I routinely encounter:

– Nominee individuals or family members holding title in their names while the true owner funds purchase and enjoys use.

– Corporate nominees where shares or property reside in a company controlled by a settlor, family office or offshore vehicle.

– Trustee or trust structures where trustees hold legal title but beneficiaries include the spouse or family members in practice.

– Nominee shareholders of companies that hold property, often accompanied by nominee directors and corporate service providers.

– Offshore vehicles and foundations using local nominee services with minimal transparency.

Each structure imposes different evidential and procedural challenges. The investigative route depends on the pattern of ownership and the jurisdictions involved.

Behavioural and documentary red flags that indicate nominee ownership

I start with observable behaviour and available documents. Typical red flags include:

– Property registered in the name of a close family member, friend or newly incorporated company without a commercial explanation.

– Rapid transfers shortly before separation or anticipated litigation.

– Discrepancy between declared income and lifestyle combined with rent free occupation of property by the respondent.

– Payment records showing payments from the respondent or their businesses towards mortgage, maintenance or improvements on a property in a third party name.

– Use of nominee companies with shared directors, addresses or formation agents linked to the respondent.

– Lack of a clear paper trail for purchase funds or loans documented as informal arrangements.

If you spot one or more of these flags treat them as triggers for forensic analysis rather than conclusive proof.

Initial investigative steps I take

My first objective is to assemble a clear factual picture before going to court. I follow a staged investigative plan:

1. Collect client documents and chronology

I ask the client for bank statements, conveyancing files, mortgage documents, corporate records and any correspondence about property purchases or loans. I create a chronology of transfers, payments and events that aligns property activity with the relationship timeline.

2. Search public records

I review Land Registry titles, Companies House filings, planning records, council tax data and local searches. These sources often reveal registered owners, charge holders and previous titles that identify nominee patterns.

3. Analyse banking and payment evidence

I instruct forensic accountants to trace the source of purchase funds and ongoing payments. Payments from the respondent’s bank accounts to the nominee’s account create a strong circumstantial link.

4. Conduct corporate and company searches

Where a company holds property I examine share registers, appointments and filings. I look for nominee directors, common addresses and service providers that connect the company to the respondent.

5. Preserve electronic evidence

I instruct clients to preserve emails devices and cloud accounts. I arrange forensic images of devices where necessary to capture messages, drafts and attachments that reveal intent or instructions about ownership.

6. Interview witnesses and professional advisers

Former employees, business partners, accountants, conveyancers and corporate service providers often hold vital information. I obtain witness statements and where appropriate approach advisers for documents subject to privilege considerations.

Legal tools to compel disclosure in nominee property cases

When voluntary disclosure fails I deploy compulsory legal remedies available in England and Wales. Choosing the right tool depends on the target and the evidence.

– Specific disclosure orders under the Family Procedure Rules

I apply for targeted disclosure against the respondent to compel production of documents such as title deeds, transfer forms, loan agreements and correspondence with nominees. Precise schedules increase the likelihood of compliance and reduce costs.

– Norwich Pharmacal orders

When third parties possess records identifying the beneficial owner I seek Norwich Pharmacal orders. These compel banks, conveyancers, corporate service providers formation agents or trustees to disclose information such as account records, company formation files and KYC documentation that link nominees to the true owner.

– Production orders and third party disclosure

I use production orders to obtain documents held by non‑parties. Where a nominee company engages professional advisers or banks these orders often produce the underlying records showing funding and beneficial arrangements.

– Freezing injunctions and Mareva orders

If I fear dissipation I apply for freezing injunctions to restrain the movement of assets including bank accounts and property sales. Freezing orders preserve the status quo while investigations proceed.

– Search and seizure orders

In exceptional cases I seek proprietary or search orders that permit inspection of premises or seized documents. These orders require a strong evidential foundation and careful drafting to comply with proportionality principles.

– Contempt proceedings and enforcement

If a respondent or third party refuses to comply with a court order I consider contempt proceedings which can result in fines or committal. Enforcement pressure often produces cooperation.

Drafting orders that target nominees effectively

Precision matters when drafting orders. Overbroad orders invite resistance, delay and cost. I design orders to:

– Name specific assets and titles by Land Registry title number, property address or company registration number.

– Define precise date ranges and transaction types to avoid fishing.

– List specified documents such as transfer deeds, settlement statements, mortgage files, KYC documentation and bank records.

– Include preservation clauses requiring third parties to retain records and refrain from altering data.

– Propose confidentiality protections to protect commercially sensitive material and reputations.

Tailored orders reduce objections and speed compliance.

Using Companies House and Land Registry strategically

Public registers deliver evidence and cross checks. I use them to:

– Identify registered owners, trustees, charge holders and registered addresses from Land Registry titles.

– Check historic title transfers that show sudden changes of ownership or transfers around separation.

– Examine Companies House for corporate nominees, share allotment filings and PSC registries where they exist.

– Cross reference addresses and professional names to spot repeated use of nominee services or formation agents.

These steps often reveal the basic architecture of nominee arrangements and identify which third parties to target with orders.

Forensic accounting and tracing purchase funds

Money talks. Forensic tracing establishes whether the respondent funded property purchases or ongoing costs. I instruct accountants to:

– Trace source of funds for deposits, stamp duty, solicitor fees and mortgage payments.

– Identify transfers from the respondent’s companies or personal accounts into nominee accounts.

– Analyse director loan accounts, intercompany transfers and unusual payments that effectively channel value to the nominee.

– Produce clear, court ready reports that quantify the value and show transactional chains.

A well supported tracing report strengthens any application to treat nominee property as beneficially owned by the respondent.

Proving sham transactions and constructive trusts

Where parties attempt to disguise transfers as genuine commercial transactions I scrutinise the substance. The court will examine whether transfers were intended to be real or to defeat a spouse’s claim. I look for indicators of sham or constructive trust including:

– Lack of genuine consideration for transfers or informal agreements documented only later.

– Continued use and control of property by the respondent despite legal title with a nominee.

– Consistent payments for mortgages rates and maintenance from the respondent’s accounts.

– Evidence that nominees acted as puppets, following instructions without independent discretion.

If the facts support it I advance constructive trust arguments that treat the beneficial ownership as never having passed from the respondent.

Cross border considerations and offshore nominees

Many nominee structures involve offshore jurisdictions. I adopt a pragmatic cross border strategy:

– Target intermediaries with UK connections. Often banks formation agents or trust companies operate through UK entities or hold records in England and Wales. Norwich Pharmacal orders against these intermediaries frequently produce crucial documents.

– Instruct local counsel where offshore records are essential. Parallel proceedings or production orders in the foreign jurisdiction can unblock deadlocks.

– Use mutual legal assistance, letters of request and cooperation with foreign regulators when appropriate.

– Consider pragmatic settlement options where forensic recovery overseas proves costly or uncertain.

Cross border work increases cost and complexity but it rarely prevents discovery if you act early and co‑ordinate expert teams.

Managing confidentiality and reputation concerns

High net worth clients worry about publicity. I prioritise confidentiality throughout the investigation and litigation:

– Seek confidentiality orders and protective regimes such as confidentiality rings when sensitive business records appear.

– Limit public filing of documents by applying to redact sensitive material or to file sealed exhibits when appropriate.

– Use discreet investigators and private negotiation channels to reduce media exposure.

– Consider mediation or settlement talks once disclosure gives you leverage to secure a confidential agreement.

Courts recognise legitimate privacy interests and will routinely accommodate protective measures when you demonstrate legitimate need.

Costs, funding and proportionality

Investigations into nominee ownership can become expensive. I advise clients on budgeting and proportionality:

– Prioritise avenues likely to yield high value results such as tracing large purchase payments or targeting key intermediaries.

– Consider staged investigation to control costs and to test whether limited orders produce the evidence needed for settlement.

– Explore litigation funding, insurance or contribution agreements where appropriate.

– Remember that courts consider proportionality and may refuse overly intrusive or costly orders that offer little likely return.

A pragmatic, staged approach frequently balances the need for evidence with cost control.

Interim tactics that change bargaining power

Strategic interim applications often alter negotiation dynamics:

– Apply for urgent Norwich Pharmacal orders to obtain KYC records and account details quickly.

– Seek freezing orders to prevent sale or transfer.

– Request specific disclosure of transfer documents and loan records to expose the funding trail.

– Use early forensic reports as leverage in negotiation rather than pursuing full litigation.

Early decisive steps often produce settlement without protracted trial.

Practical checklist for clients who suspect nominee property concealment

– Preserve all documents: bank statements conveyancing files emails and messages.

– Provide your solicitor with comprehensive chronologies of property activity and payments.

– Avoid approaching nominees directly in a way that might tip off the respondent or risk evidence destruction.

– Engage forensic accountants and digital forensics early if transfers or electronic records matter.

– Consider Norwich Pharmacal and production orders against intermediaries with UK connections.

– Seek freezing orders where there is a real risk of dissipation.

– Insist on confidentiality protections to shield reputations and business sensitivity.

– Be prepared to fund targeted investigations that are proportional to potential recoveries.

– Keep negotiation channels open once disclosure provides leverage.

– Work with cross border counsel promptly if offshore nominees play a role.

Conclusion — act early, gather evidence and use targeted tools

Nominee ownership increasingly complicates high net worth divorces, but courts in England and Wales possess powerful remedies when you act methodically. My practice focuses on early fact finding, precise disclosure orders, forensic tracing and pragmatic use of Norwich Pharmacal and freezing orders. That combination exposes concealed property, protects clients from dissipation and produces fair outcomes without unnecessary publicity. If you suspect property sits behind a nominee contact us at Alexander JLO. We will map the likely ownership routes, design a cost efficient investigative plan and pursue the legal steps necessary to recover the true value for your financial settlement.

Alexander JLO we have many years of experience of dealing with all aspects of family law and will be happy to discuss your case in a free no obligation consultation. Why not call us on +44 (0)20 7537 7000, email us at info@london-law.co.uk or get in touch via the contact us button and see what we can do for you?

This blog was prepared by Peter Johnson on 17th November 2025 and is correct at the time of going to press. With over forty years of experience in almost all areas of law Peter is happy to assist with any legal issue that you have. He is widely regarded as one of London’s leading divorce lawyers. His profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be found Here.

To follow up on any of the above please contact Guy Wilton of our family department. Guy has wide experience of acting for the firm’s clients, their family and their businesses. Guy’s experience as a lawyer started in the Northern and Welsh Circuits, including the Liverpool Courts, where he represented numerous clients after being called to the Bar, before opting to join Alexander JLO in 2017 and qualifying as a solicitor in 2024. He is a highly experienced family lawyer with a particular interest in financial remedy proceedings and child contact disputes.

Guy’s profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be viewed here.