In a pivotal decision, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court has determined that Bank of Baroda might need to reveal suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and associated internal documents in civil proceedings tied to NMC Healthcare’s collapse. This comes after updates to the UAE’s anti-money laundering legislation.
Justice Sir Andrew Smith recently overturned a previous order that had restricted the disclosure of such documents, following applications by the joint administrators of NMC Healthcare Ltd and NMC Holding Ltd.
This ruling aligns with the new Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025 on Anti-Money Laundering, which took effect on October 14, superseding the 2018 version.
Stay informed with the latest updates. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
The ruling is part of ongoing civil litigation initiated by NMC’s administrators against the firm’s founder, Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, former executive Prasanth Manghat, and Bank of Baroda, regarding alleged misconduct related to NMC’s downfall.
Back in June 2025, the court had prohibited Bank of Baroda from disclosing any STRs filed under UAE anti-money laundering laws, citing stringent confidentiality and potential criminal liability for “tipping off”. However, the administrators returned to court after the new AML law was enacted, arguing a shift in the legal landscape.
Justice Smith agreed, stating that the 2025 AML Law provides a broader exception, allowing the disclosure of confidential information “in other situations permitted by law”.
The judge dismissed Bank of Baroda’s claim that this exception only pertains to federal legislation and excludes court orders.
“I find that Baroda’s interpretation of ‘qanoun’ is overly restrictive,” Justice Smith stated, suggesting that the term can, depending on the context, encompass court orders from UAE courts.
As a result, a UAE court-ordered disclosure does not inherently violate the 2025 AML law’s confidentiality clauses.
The court emphasized that STRs should not be routinely disclosed in civil litigation. Justice Smith noted that courts must weigh public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of reports submitted to the Financial Information Unit (FIU) against the necessity for a fair trial.
“The Court aims to avoid any orders that might unnecessarily compromise the FIU’s critical work,” the judgment stated.
Before any disclosure, the court indicated that the FIU and other authorities could be allowed to object if the disclosure might impact ongoing or future investigations.
The court acknowledged that the allegations against Bank of Baroda involve “serious accusations of dishonesty and other misconduct” and concluded there is a realistic chance the contested documents could help resolve the case. These documents pertain to issues from before or around April 2020, and the court believes they are unlikely to affect current FIU activities.
Lawyers’ Perspectives
Khalifa Bin Huwaidan Al Ketbi
Khalifa Bin Huwaidan Al Ketbi, a senior lawyer at Al Ketbi Legal Advocates and Legal Consultants, commented to Khaleej Times that the updated AML law offers improved clarity. “It maintains the confidentiality of suspicious transaction reports while allowing courts, under strict conditions, to permit disclosures necessary for a fair trial,” he remarked.
Mahrah Belobaida Al Suwedi
Mahrah Belobaida Al Suwedi, a senior lawyer at Al Riyami Advocates & Muhyealdeen International Legal Consultants, noted that the ruling underscores a more balanced framework. “The judgment illustrates how the new AML law offers clearer guidance to courts, enabling limited judicial discretion without undermining the AML regime’s integrity,” she stated.
