The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon
Work 0207 583 8392
Fax 0207 681 2248
DX 450 LDE

London: Crime, fraud and licensing

Fraud: civil
Leading individuals

Robert Hunter - Edmonds Marshall McMahon

[back to top]

Fraud: white-collar crime
Fraud: white-collar crime - ranked: tier 2

Edmonds Marshall McMahon

Edmonds Marshall McMahon is a specialist private prosecution law firm. It acts for companies, investigators and individuals to provide prosecution services including assembling evidence to secure convictions and the protection of assets and commercial rights. Areas of expertise include multi-jurisdictional private wealth disputes, forgery of trusts and probate, trust busting and enforcement. The firm also acts for clients who have been the victim of fraud in commercial joint ventures or employee fraud including theft of sensitive, confidential data. Stuart Lill joined as senior investigative lawyer from the SFO and Charles Fleury joined as an investigator from the SFO.

Practice head(s):Kate McMahon; Andrew Marshall; Tamlyn Edmonds

Other key lawyers:Stuart Lill; Charles Fleury; David Jugnarain; Mike Jackson; Penny Brown; Matthew Edwards; Jane Guthrie; Ashley Fairbrother; Marie-Claire Amuah

Key Clients

Argyn Khassenov

Hunter Worldwide Premium Sourcing

DAS UK Holdings

Murli Mirchandani

Alan Blinkhorn

Prashant and Yashwant Patel

Peter Panayiotou

Gary Summers

TM Eye

Work highlights

  • Successful investigation and private prosecution in a £1m conspiracy to defraud involving multiple jurisdictions.
  • Successfully investigated and brought a private prosecution on behalf of Hunter Worldwide Premium Sourcing Ltd in a £1.8m fraud against their financial controller after Hertfordshire police cited “difficulties” committing their resources to a full investigation.
  • Acted in one of the largest and most complex private prosecutions ever undertaken in a £4m business scam
  • Instructed by a client who had been the subject of malicious sustained litigation by the previous owner of his property (MP) in order to deprive him of that property, now valued at approximately £4m.
  • Instructed by Mr Gary Summers, barrister, to advise on the judicial review (JR) of whether the decision of Southwark Crown Court to grant three witness summonses was lawful.

[back to top]

London: Private client

Contentious trusts and probate
Leading individuals

Sofie Hoffman - Edmonds Marshall McMahon

[back to top]

Further information on Edmonds Marshall McMahon

Please choose from this list to view details of what we say about Edmonds Marshall McMahon in other jurisdictions.


Offices in London

Legal Developments in the UK

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‚Äėcentre of life test‚Äô in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of¬† ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan ¬† [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the ‚ÄúRegulations‚ÄĚ). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess ¬†Surinder Singh ¬†cases that appear before them.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a¬† sole representative visa ¬†is not ‚Äúa¬† majority shareholder in the overseas business‚ÄĚ.
  • Immigration Skills Charge - A Guide for Employers

    As a Sponsor, you may be required to pay the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) each time you sponsor a migrant in the  Tier 2 General  or  Intra-Company Transfer (ICT) Long-term Staff  subcategory.
  • 5 FAQS about paragraph 320(11)

    In applications for entry clearance where the applicant has a negative immigration history in the UK, the application may be refused under the general grounds for refusal, which are found in part 9 of the Immigration Rules. Where an applicant has ¬†‚Äėpreviously contrived in a significant way to frustrate the intentions of the Immigration Rules‚Äô,¬† the application could be refused under paragraph 320(11). In this post we look at five frequently asked questions about paragraph 320(11).¬†
  • Multiple nationality and multiple citizenship (including dual nationality and dual citizenship)

    British nationality law permits multiple nationality and multiple citizenship, including dual nationality and dual citizenship.
  • Applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the Exceptional Talent or Promise Category

    The  Exceptional Talent  and Exceptional Promise categories are for individuals who are recognised leaders or emerging leaders in their field of expertise. There are a number of endorsing bodies for lots of different fields of work, including  artists and musicians ,  architects ,  digital experts ,  scientists  and  academics . While there isn’t an endorsing body for every expert, the growing list means that many individuals could enjoy the flexibility that this category has to offer. 

    Syedur Rahmanconsiders the factors that determine when civil proceedings can go ahead before,or at the same time as, criminal proceedings relating to the same circumstances.
  • Rights of appeal after the Immigration Act 2014

    The Immigration Act 2014 (‚Äúthe 2014 Act‚ÄĚ) reduced the circumstances in which the refusal of an immigration application will give rise to a right of appeal.¬†The¬† explanatory notes ¬†to the 2014 Act state that the Act was intended to restructure rights of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. Previously, a right of appeal to the Immigration Tribunal existed against any of the 14 different immigration decisions listed in s.82 of the¬† Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ¬†(‚Äúthe 2002 Act‚ÄĚ). As explained below, whether or not the refusal of an immigration application currently generates a right of appeal depends on the subject matter of the application rather than its categorisation.