The Legal 500

Chambers of Christopher Rees

20 CATHEDRAL ROAD, CARDIFF, CF11 9LJ, WALES
Tel:
Work 02920 232032
Fax:
Fax 02920 233636
DX:
141874 CARDIFF 28
Email:
Web:
www.apexchambers.net

Lee Reynolds

Tel:
Work 029 2023 2032
Email:
Apex Chambers (Chambers of Christopher Rees)

Position

Lee was called to the Bar in 2002. He specialises in regulatory criminal law and Fraud. He particularly specialises in MTIC frauds and has appeared in cases such as Operation Bridging and Forbear (£180m MTIC fraud). He represents local authorities across England and Wales prosecuting serious cases of fraud, intellectual property abuse, animal welfare, health and safety and a variety of other area prosecuted by local counclls. He is Panel counsel for the Health and Safety Executive and has prosecuted for the Serious and Organised Crime Office, Illegal Money Lending Unit, Scambusters and the Welsh Assembly Government. He is frequently involved in advising individuals and companies on ‘due diligence’ systems, and has experience advising local authorities on case management, preparation and prosecution. Regular areas of work include the 1994 Trade Marks Act, prosecuting one of Wales’s largest cases concerning conspiracy to sell counterfeit merchandise; the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; food and food safety, including the prosecution of large supermarkets on behalf of numerous local authorities for food safety, food labelling, pricing and other consumer protection offences. Lee has developed a specialism in matters under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including money laundering, and regularly lectures to local authorities and solicitors concerning the same. He is also experienced in civil recovery cases.

Career

Called 2002; Gray’s Inn.

Education

Cardiff University (2000 2(1)); BVC (2001).

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

    Introduction
  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.