Worldwide Freezing Orders in the DIFC and ADGM: Recovering Assets in Dubai

Since DIFC Court Law 2/2025 came into force, foreign claimants can obtain a worldwide freezing order through the DIFC Courts without any UAE asset nexus — a structural shift that makes Dubai one of the most powerful asset-recovery jurisdictions globally.

The Legal Framework: DIFC Court Law 2/2025 and the No-Nexus Revolution

The foundational change brought by DIFC Court Law No. 2/2025 is the explicit statutory grant of jurisdiction to issue freestanding injunctive relief — including worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) — in direct support of foreign proceedings, without requiring the applicant to demonstrate that any assets are located within the DIFC or even within the UAE. Prior to this enactment, the DIFC Courts operated under a more constrained reading of their ancillary jurisdiction, and applicants faced the preliminary hurdle of establishing a sufficient territorial nexus. Law 2/2025 removes that hurdle as a matter of black-letter statute, bringing the DIFC into alignment with the approach long taken by the English Commercial Court under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

The statute empowers the DIFC Courts to grant interim relief — including asset-freezing injunctions, disclosure orders, and receivership appointments — where substantive proceedings are on foot, or are reasonably anticipated, before a competent foreign court or arbitral tribunal. The court retains a structured discretion: it must be satisfied that it would be inexpedient to grant the relief only if the connection with the DIFC or the UAE is so remote as to make enforcement practically illusory. In practice, this sets a low bar. A respondent who banks, holds investments, owns property, maintains a family office, or controls corporate vehicles anywhere in the UAE — or indeed anywhere globally — falls squarely within the reach of an order made by the DIFC Courts under Law 2/2025.

Complementing the statutory position, the DIFC Courts' own Rules of Court (RDC) provide the procedural machinery: applications may be made on a without-notice (ex parte) basis where there is a real risk of dissipation, and the standard Mareva-type undertaking in damages applies. The DIFC follows English common law principles on the substantive test — a good arguable case on the merits, a real risk of dissipation, and a balance of convenience favouring the grant — but Law 2/2025 now definitively resolves the jurisdictional pre-condition that previously generated satellite litigation. Critically, the order can extend to assets worldwide, compelling the respondent personally to disclose and refrain from dealing with all assets up to the specified maximum sum, wherever located.

The DIFC Digital Assets Law No. 2/2024 provides an additional layer of relevance: it classifies crypto-assets as property capable of being the subject of proprietary and injunctive relief. This means that a WFO obtained under Law 2/2025 can expressly capture cryptocurrency wallets, tokenised assets, and other digital holdings — an increasingly important feature given the volume of asset-stripping cases involving crypto in the Gulf region.

The ADGM's Parallel Development: A17 v B17 [2025]

The Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts have moved in lockstep with the DIFC through the significant 2025 decision of A17 v B17 [2025]. In that case, the ADGM Court of First Instance granted a freestanding worldwide freezing order in support of foreign arbitral proceedings, expressly affirming that the ADGM Courts possess the jurisdiction to do so even in the absence of any demonstrated connection between the respondent's assets and the ADGM or Abu Dhabi. The court grounded its reasoning in the ADGM Courts Regulations and the broad equitable and statutory jurisdiction conferred on it as a court of common law, analogising closely to the English Court of Appeal's approach in Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and the House of Lords in Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v Lee Kui Jak.

A17 v B17 establishes several propositions of immediate practical utility. First, the ADGM Court will not decline jurisdiction merely because the respondent holds no assets within the ADGM free zone itself — the personal jurisdiction over the respondent (through service, submission, or the presence of business activity in the UAE) is the operative gateway. Second, the court confirmed that a WFO can include a mandatory disclosure schedule requiring the respondent to identify all assets globally above a defined threshold within a specified number of days of service — typically 24 to 72 hours in urgent matters. Third, the judgment endorses the principle that breach of an ADGM WFO constitutes contempt of court, punishable by committal, sequestration of assets, or substantial fines — consequences with real teeth even for respondents domiciled outside the UAE.

Taken together, Law 2/2025 and A17 v B17 create a dual-court architecture in the UAE's common law zones, each capable of issuing WFOs in support of proceedings anywhere in the world. For practitioners advising foreign victims of fraud, embezzlement, or financial crime, this means the UAE now functions as a genuine forum of necessity — a jurisdiction where a single urgent application can freeze the global asset base of a UAE-connected wrongdoer while the main proceedings grind forward in London, Singapore, New York, or a commercial arbitration seat.

Obtaining a Worldwide Freezing Order: Procedure and Tactical Considerations

The procedural pathway in the DIFC begins with an urgent without-notice application to the DIFC Courts' Registry. The application is supported by a detailed affidavit (typically from the lead advocate or a senior officer of the claimant entity) exhibiting the evidence of the underlying claim, the risk of dissipation, and the global asset picture insofar as it is known. The applicant must give the standard cross-undertaking in damages — the court will scrutinise whether this is backed by a fortified undertaking (cash or bank guarantee) if the respondent's potential loss from a wrongly-granted order is material. Under the DIFC's expedited procedures, a without-notice hearing can be listed within hours of a properly filed application; in truly urgent cases — where funds are actively being moved — the Registry has facilitated same-day hearings.

The core evidence required is: (i) a good arguable case on the merits of the underlying foreign claim; (ii) evidence of a real risk of dissipation — this can be inferred from the nature of the fraud, the respondent's history of moving assets, the use of layered corporate structures, or circumstantial indicators such as sudden asset transfers evidenced by corporate registry searches or blockchain analytics; and (iii) a full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including any weaknesses in the applicant's case. Failure to give full and frank disclosure is the most common ground on which WFOs are subsequently discharged — and the consequences extend beyond discharge to potential liability in costs and contempt.

Once granted, the order is served on the respondent personally and — critically — on third-party financial institutions. Under Federal Decree-Law No. 10/2025 on AML/CFT/CPF (in force 14 October 2025), UAE-licensed banks and financial institutions face substantial regulatory exposure, including fines up to AED 100 million under Article provisions on institutional liability, if they facilitate the movement of assets in knowing breach of a court order. Serving a DIFC or ADGM WFO on the respondent's UAE bankers therefore creates an immediate and practically enforceable freeze on the relevant accounts, without the need for separate onshore enforcement proceedings — a significant practical advantage over purely foreign injunctions.

A return date hearing (usually 7–14 days after the without-notice order) gives the respondent the opportunity to challenge the order. The applicant must be prepared to convert its without-notice evidence into inter partes evidence, deal with any discharge application, and — where the underlying proceedings are arbitral — address the question of whether the seat's supervisory courts have themselves issued or declined to issue equivalent relief, since courts will consider this in exercising their discretion under Law 2/2025.

Asset Tracing, Disclosure Orders, and the UAE Corporate Transparency Framework

A worldwide freezing order is only as valuable as the asset information it generates. DIFC and ADGM courts routinely combine a WFO with an ancillary disclosure order requiring the respondent to file a sworn statement of all assets — whether held directly or through nominees, trusts, foundations, or corporate vehicles — above a specified threshold. This disclosure obligation is personal to the respondent and enforceable by contempt. It is standard practice to seek the disclosure order simultaneously with the WFO, rather than sequentially, so that the asset picture crystallises before the respondent has time to instruct advisers on restructuring.

The UAE's corporate transparency framework materially assists tracing exercises. Cabinet Decision No. 109/2023 on Ultimate Beneficial Ownership imposes a 25% ownership threshold for UBO registration across all UAE onshore and free zone entities. Registered agents and licensed DNFBP intermediaries — lawyers, accountants, corporate service providers — are obliged to maintain verified UBO registers and to file with the relevant authority. Subpoenas or court-ordered disclosure directed at corporate registrars, licensed CSPs, and DNFBP firms can therefore yield ownership chains with relative speed in the UAE context, particularly where the DIFC Courts issue an order to a DIFC-registered entity or its registered agent.

For crypto-asset tracing, the combination of DIFC Digital Assets Law No. 2/2024 — which confirms crypto is property amenable to proprietary remedies — and Cabinet Resolution No. 134/2025 (the Executive Regulations to FDL 10/2025) is powerful. Cabinet Resolution 134/2025 implements the Travel Rule at an AED 3,500 threshold for virtual asset service providers, requiring VASPs to collect and transmit originator/beneficiary information on transfers. VARA-licensed VASPs operating under the VARA Rulebooks 2.0 (May 2025) and the VARA Issuance Rulebook (June 2025) are required to comply with court orders issued by UAE courts, including DIFC and ADGM courts. A disclosure order served on a VARA-licensed exchange can compel production of wallet addresses, transaction histories, and KYC records — enabling a full on-chain tracing exercise in conjunction with blockchain analytics specialists.

Parallel Criminal Proceedings and the AML Freeze Mechanism

Sophisticated asset recovery in the UAE routinely involves a dual-track strategy: civil injunctive proceedings before the DIFC or ADGM courts running in parallel with criminal complaints and administrative referrals before onshore authorities. The UAE's criminal framework has been substantially modernised. The Federal Penal Code (Federal Decree-Law No. 31/2021), amended by FDL No. 36/2022, contains the core fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, and money laundering offences. The Federal Criminal Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 38/2022), in force from 1 March 2023 and amended by FDL No. 45/2023, governs the procedural framework for investigative freezes, asset seizure orders, and the appointment of judicial receivers in criminal proceedings.

The AML/CFT/CPF framework has been comprehensively replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 10/2025 (in force 14 October 2025), supported by Cabinet Resolution No. 134/2025 as Executive Regulations. FDL 10/2025 repeals FDL No. 20/2018 in its entirety and introduces several materially new provisions of relevance to asset recovery. First, it adds proliferation financing and tax evasion as predicate offences for money laundering — expanding the category of assets that can be characterised as proceeds of crime. Second, it introduces personal liability for senior managers of financial institutions that facilitate ML/TF, removing the prior ambiguity about whether criminal exposure extended beyond the corporate entity. Third, institutional fines reach AED 100 million. Fourth — and critically for recovery practitioners — there is no statute of limitations for money laundering offences under FDL 10/2025, meaning that historical transactions which moved value through the UAE are potentially actionable regardless of when they occurred.

A criminal complaint filed with the Public Prosecution under FDL 38/2022 can trigger an investigative freeze order over UAE bank accounts and assets of the accused within 24–48 hours in cases involving serious fraud or ML. This mechanism operates entirely independently of the DIFC/ADGM civil proceedings and provides a powerful complementary tool — particularly where the respondent holds assets in onshore UAE banks rather than DIFC-regulated entities. The civil and criminal tracks must be managed carefully to avoid prejudicing either set of proceedings, and confidentiality obligations under FDL 38/2022 restrict what evidence can be shared between tracks without prosecutorial consent. However, when coordinated properly, the combination of a DIFC WFO, an onshore criminal investigative freeze, and a VARA-directed disclosure order creates a layered enforcement architecture that is extremely difficult for a respondent to circumvent.

Recognition and Enforcement: Onshore UAE, Foreign Courts, and the FATF Dividend

A critical practical question is whether a DIFC or ADGM WFO can be enforced in onshore UAE (i.e., before the Dubai Courts or Abu Dhabi Courts) and in foreign jurisdictions. On the onshore enforcement question, the answer is structured through two mechanisms. First, the Judicial Tribunal established by Dubai Law No. 12/2004 (as amended) governs the relationship between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Courts, and under that framework a DIFC judgment or order — including a WFO — can be ratified and enforced by the Dubai Courts as an onshore execution order. The ratification process has been streamlined considerably since 2021 and, in urgent preservation cases, can be expedited. Second, where the respondent holds assets in Abu Dhabi onshore, the ADGM WFO from A17 v B17 can similarly be referred to the Abu Dhabi judicial authorities for enforcement, through the framework governing ADGM-onshore judicial cooperation.

For foreign enforcement, a DIFC WFO is treated as an English-law-style Mareva injunction in common law jurisdictions — the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, BVI, Cayman Islands — and practitioners in those jurisdictions will typically recognise and give effect to it (or grant a mirror order in support) on the basis of comity and the established Mareva jurisprudence. The UAE's removal from the FATF grey list in February 2024 and the EU's removal of the UAE from its high-risk third country list in 2025 have materially improved the reception of UAE court orders in European jurisdictions that had previously treated UAE orders with scepticism on AML/governance grounds. With the UAE's next FATF mutual evaluation scheduled for 2026, the regulatory environment strongly incentivises continued judicial cooperation.

Enforcement against UAE-connected assets in civil law jurisdictions (France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland) requires a separate exequatur process. However, where the underlying substantive proceedings are themselves pending before a recognised court or arbitral institution — ICC, LCIA, DIAC, ADCCAC — the existence of a DIFC WFO as a precautionary measure will typically be recognised by civil law courts as a legitimate basis for granting equivalent interim relief domestically. Coordination between UAE and European counsel is therefore essential from the outset of any cross-border recovery matter.

Strategic Considerations for HNW Claimants, Boards, and Financial Institutions

For high-net-worth individual victims and corporate claimants, the decision to pursue a DIFC WFO rather than — or in addition to — relief before the English Commercial Court or the Singapore International Commercial Court involves a frank assessment of speed, cost, respondent connection to the UAE, and enforcement leverage. The DIFC's principal advantage is the ability to serve the WFO directly on UAE banks and VASPs, creating an immediate freeze on Gulf-region liquidity that a London order cannot achieve without further proceedings. Where a respondent is UAE-resident, runs a UAE business, or has significant UAE-based wealth (including real estate registered in Dubai Land Department or Abu Dhabi DLD), the DIFC WFO provides leverage that foreign orders simply cannot replicate.

Boards and GCs of UAE-incorporated or UAE-registered entities facing the prospect of a WFO application being made against the company or its officers should be aware that FDL 31/2021 (Penal Code) creates personal criminal liability for directors and senior managers who dissipate assets after becoming aware that proceedings are anticipated or on foot. The same principle applies under FDL 51/2023 (Bankruptcy Law), which creates specific offences of fraudulent and negligent bankruptcy — including the concealment or preferential transfer of assets in the period before insolvency proceedings. Directors who are on notice of an imminent WFO application and who take steps to move assets risk not only contempt of court but criminal prosecution.

For financial institutions — UAE banks, investment firms, and VARA-licensed VASPs — the duty upon receipt of a DIFC or ADGM WFO is clear: freeze the identified accounts and assets immediately, and report the receipt of the order to compliance and legal. Failure to do so risks both contempt of the DIFC or ADGM court and regulatory sanction under FDL 10/2025, where CBUAE under Law No. 6/2025 can impose administrative fines up to AED 1 billion on regulated entities for serious governance failures. The intersection of judicial obligation and regulatory obligation creates a powerful enforcement mechanism that has no equivalent in most other jurisdictions.

Finally, practitioners should note that FDL 32/2025 and FDL 33/2025 — which establish the Capital Markets Authority (replacing the SCA from 1 January 2026) and codify insider dealing/market manipulation offences with penalties up to AED 200 million — expand the category of financial misconduct that can serve as the predicate for a WFO application. A victim of market manipulation or fraudulent securities dealing can now ground a DIFC WFO application on an underlying claim that itself engages UAE criminal market abuse law, strengthening both the merits limb and the dissipation risk argument in the WFO application.

Practical checklist

• Confirm foreign proceedings are on foot or genuinely imminent before filing under Law 2/2025
• Gather blockchain analytics and corporate registry evidence of dissipation risk before the without-notice hearing
• Prepare fortified cross-undertaking in damages backed by cash or bank guarantee if the sum at risk is large
• Identify all UAE banks, VASPs, and corporate registrars to be served simultaneously with the WFO
• File a parallel criminal complaint with UAE Public Prosecution where fraud or AML predicates under FDL 31/2021 or FDL 10/2025 are present
• Serve WFO on VARA-licensed exchanges to capture crypto assets under DIFC Digital Assets Law 2/2024 and Cabinet Resolution 134/2025
• Coordinate with onshore Dubai or Abu Dhabi courts for ratification and enforcement against non-DIFC/ADGM assets
• Instruct European counsel immediately if enforcement in civil law jurisdictions is anticipated, to run mirror-order proceedings in parallel

Frequently asked questions

Related guides

• Extradition To and From the UAE After the 2023 Reforms
• INTERPOL Red Notices and the UAE: Removal, Provisional Arrest and Defence
• Tried in Your Absence: In-Absentia Convictions in the UAE and How to Reopen Them
• White-Collar & Financial Crime — full guide

Published 15 July 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.