I wonder what the Court of Appeal was thinking about in its judgment in Bowman v Fels (see [2005] Gazette, 10 March, 1).


Everyone has sympathy for the situation with litigants who might be disadvantaged because of a solicitor's suspicion that there is, or was, a money laundering offence. However, it seems to me that unless there is an appeal, the court has opened the doors to a considerable gap in the efficacy of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.


I do not agree with Law Society chief executive Janet Paraskeva's statement that the judgment will eliminate confusion; it will only add to the same. I can envisage a well-informed money launderer entering into commercial commitments with his co-organisers abroad, which can involve transactions of many millions of pounds. If under a contract the court here had jurisdiction, an action could be brought in our courts for a breach of contract where damages would be payable by a third party of vast sums. The solicitors involved in the litigation would not have to worry, if I read the case correctly, as to the source of the damages and the claimant could, one way or the other, succeed in producing vast sums of money as damages from an improper source paid by the defendant.


As a result of this decision, neither of the law firms would be obliged to consider the source of payment and the funding. Is this a victory for solicitors?


H Kanter, Kanter Jules, London