Michael Thomson, former chief executive of London Capital & Finance, and his wife, Debbie, admitted breaching a restraint order and were found in contempt of court following a Serious Fraud Office application on 29 January 2026. The admissions relate to orders made during the SFO’s investigation into suspected fraud and money laundering at LCF. (gov.uk)
According to the SFO, Michael Thomson admitted two reckless breaches and Debbie Thomson admitted four. Investigators identified a £2,000 holiday refund and the sale of personal items, including a hot tub and horse saddles, totalling nearly £5,800. Michael Thomson was already serving a suspended sentence for an earlier breach after transferring £95,000 to his wife. The wider case concerns losses suffered by approximately 11,000 investors, estimated at over £237m between 2014 and 2019. (gov.uk)
Restraint orders are granted under section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to preserve realisable property while criminal proceedings or investigations are ongoing. An order can cover all property held by a named person, including assets acquired after it is made, and the court may add directions to ensure effectiveness. Limited exceptions may be allowed for reasonable living or business expenses, and orders can be varied or discharged under section 42. CPS guidance states the purpose is to prevent any diminution of asset value pending confiscation. (legislation.gov.uk)
Breaching a restraint order is punishable as contempt of court. In England and Wales, the statutory ceiling for committal is two years’ imprisonment, with fines also available, under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Sentencing is fact-specific and remains at the court’s discretion within that limit. (legislation.gov.uk)
For individuals subject to restraint, the safe course is not to deal with covered assets unless the order expressly permits it. Where funds are required beyond any stated exceptions-such as for living costs-the correct step is to apply to vary the order rather than proceed and risk contempt. CPS guidance emphasises full and balanced disclosure in applications and highlights that exceptions are tightly framed to prevent dissipation. (cps.gov.uk)
This case shows that seemingly minor receipts and private sales can constitute prohibited dealing. Section 41 confirms that dealing includes removing property from England and Wales and that orders may capture property obtained after they are made. Parties should document any anticipated transactions, check them against the order’s terms and, if uncertain, seek directions from the court. (legislation.gov.uk)
Under POCA, applications concerning restraint orders may be brought by a prosecutor or an accredited financial investigator. Government codes of practice note that, in England and Wales, the relevant Director for POCA purposes includes the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, reflecting the SFO’s ability to initiate and enforce such applications. (legislation.gov.uk)
Michael and Debbie Thomson are listed for sentencing on 12 March 2026. The SFO said this is the second successful contempt finding against Michael Thomson for breaches of his restraint order. (gov.uk)