JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017]

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch) involves the concept of sham trusts and the test for determining whether a trust is a sham.

The court examined the establishment of five discretionary trusts by the settlor, the defendant. Each trust designated the defendant as a discretionary beneficiary and bestowed upon him the role of protector. Importantly, the protector had powers enabling the defendant to reject the exercise of trustees' powers and to remove trustees, powers that could be exercised with a selfish motive. The backdrop of the case involved creditors seeking to enforce a substantial judgment against the defendant's assets held within these trusts, with the defendant contending that he did not retain beneficial ownership of the trust assets.

The central issue before the court was whether the trusts were shams, meaning that the defendant maintained a beneficial interest in the trust assets. The court ultimately held in favour of the creditors, determining that the trusts were indeed shams, and the defendant did retain a beneficial interest in the trust assets.

The judgment outlined a comprehensive test for sham trusts, emphasising the subjective nature of intention. The court specified that the parties involved must have intended to establish different rights and obligations from those outlined in the relevant documents, with the additional intention of presenting a false impression to third parties. External evidence was deemed relevant, and the court cautioned against conflating artificial arrangements with shams. The ruling clarified that a trust could not retroactively become a sham, emphasising that the intention at the time of creation was crucial.

Specifically, the court highlighted the personal and potentially selfish nature of the protector's powers, as they allowed the defendant to retain complete control over the trust assets. The court concluded that the defendant's overarching intention in establishing the trusts was to maintain control over the assets while using them as a façade to mislead third parties by concealing his control. Notably, there was no indication that any other individual involved in establishing the trusts had an intention independent of the defendant's overarching objective.

In summary, this case contributes to the jurisprudence surrounding sham trusts by delineating a subjective test of intention, highlighting the potential selfish exercise of powers by a protector, and emphasising the importance of a common intention between the settlor and trustee. The court's findings in this case underscore the significance of genuine intention in the creation of trusts, particularly in the context of discretionary trusts with intricate structures such as those examined in this litigation.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB, edited by lawyers, and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.