When can a fund manager be liable to an investor whose own official was being bribed? In The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Rajaan Al-Wazzan [2026] EWHC 2847 (Comm), handed down on 5 November 2026, Jacobs J found that Kuwait’s social security fund had been the victim of “corruption on a breathtaking scale” by its former Director General, and held a Man Group subsidiary liable for the part of the scheme that ran through Man’s Middle East business (paras 1, 2983, 2999).
What the case was about
The Public Institution for Social Security (“PIFSS”) runs Kuwait’s social security system and has very substantial funds to invest (para 2). Mr Fahad Al Rajaan was its Director General from 1984 until January 2014 (para 3). PIFSS’ case, established at trial, was that he used his influence over investment decisions to procure around USD 1 billion in secret commissions for himself and his associates, paid out of fees on money PIFSS invested with fund managers around the world (para 4). The payments were routed through a complex web of bank accounts and offshore companies and trusts to conceal their source (para 8).
Mr Al Rajaan died in September 2022, and his widow was sued as the representative of his estate (para 6). The other defendants were intermediaries, fund managers and bankers alleged to have paid bribes to him or laundered the proceeds (para 11). Banque Pictet and Banque Mirabaud successfully challenged English jurisdiction and were pursued in Switzerland. Mirabaud later settled, as did EFG, and the figures in the judgment remain subject to adjustment for those settlements and for currency conversion (paras 21–23, 27). PIFSS’ central claims were brought under Kuwaiti tort law (para 10), and could be heard in London largely because Mr Al Rajaan spent time at his Knightsbridge property and was served in England (para 83). The trial lasted 133 sitting days, the longest in the Commercial Court for 20 years (para 1).
Man, the largest publicly listed hedge fund manager, received substantial PIFSS investments through its Middle East office, run by Mr Antoine Massad (para 17). PIFSS alleged that Mr Massad and two other Man individuals knowingly took part in paying bribes to Mr Al Rajaan through commissions paid to an intermediary, Mr Mohamad El Ghazzi (para 17).
What the High Court decided
The judge found no evidence that PIFSS had authorised the payments to Mr Al Rajaan, who never disclosed his personal interest when investments were approved (para 57). On the Man scheme, he was satisfied that Mr Massad and his successor, Mr Merville (who was not himself a defendant), participated in the corruption (paras 2450, 2963, 2995). They marketed products to PIFSS knowing that secret commissions on those investments would be paid to Mr Al Rajaan, caused or permitted commission payments to Mr El Ghazzi knowing they would be shared with him, and kept Mr El Ghazzi’s role secret from everyone at PIFSS except Mr Al Rajaan (para 2997). Unusual features reinforced that conclusion: Mr El Ghazzi became one of Man’s largest intermediaries globally with no apparent office infrastructure, and his success was almost exclusively based on PIFSS’ investments (paras 2896–2898).
The allegation that a third Man executive, Mr Moeller, knowingly participated was not established by sufficiently cogent evidence (para 2963). The judge rejected the argument that the conspiracy case had to succeed or fail against all the alleged participants together: the case against each must be looked at separately (para 2975). Mr Massad remained liable for commissions paid after he left Man in 2008, because he had helped to set up the scheme and lent his assistance to its continuation (para 2978).
Man accepted that Man Investments AG was vicariously liable for Mr Massad and Mr Merville (para 2983). Man Investments Ltd was also liable for Mr Massad’s torts up to 2005, when the Middle East office ceased to be its representative office (paras 2991–2993). The claims against Man Group Ltd and Man Strategic Holdings Ltd were dismissed because they had no operational or management role (para 2985).
On remedy, the judge held that under Kuwaiti law the compensation extends to the entire amount profiteered, not just what Mr Al Rajaan himself received (para 2998), and that no complicated counterfactual inquiry into PIFSS’ loss was required (para 404). For the Man scheme, PIFSS’ claim succeeded at USD 155,170,214 against the estate, Mr El Ghazzi, Man Investments AG and Mr Massad, with the Man Investments Ltd figure still to be calculated, before adjustment for settlements and currency (paras 2999, 3403).
The common defences failed. There was no reduction for contributory fault, since the defendants’ wrongdoing was intentional and any fault on PIFSS’ part was not; in any event, they had taken advantage of weak governance that Mr Al Rajaan created and maintained (paras 3134–3135). The limitation defences failed: tort claims founded on offences under Kuwait’s public-property and money-laundering laws, for which criminal liability is not time-barred, had not prescribed (paras 3214–3217), and a separate argument by the corporate defendants linked to another intermediary failed because Kuwaiti law requires actual knowledge (paras 3221–3224). All the claims were justiciable: viewed through English eyes, they were not an attempt to enforce a penalty or a uniquely sovereign right (para 3304). Interest was left for a later hearing (para 3408).
Why it matters
- Authority mattered more than group membership. Under the Kuwaiti-law test, which looks at the ability to exercise authority, Man Investments AG and Man Investments Ltd were liable to different extents, while the holding companies with no operational or management role were not (paras 2983–2985, 2991–2993).
- Conspirators are judged one by one. A claimant can succeed against some alleged participants and fail against others on the same scheme (paras 2975–2976).
- Compensation covered the whole amount profiteered. Under the Kuwaiti law applied here, no complicated counterfactual loss calculation was required, and those who intentionally assisted the profiteering face the same remedy (paras 404, 2998).
- Foreign public-property claims can be justiciable. A foreign state body’s claims were justiciable because, viewed through English law, they did not enforce a penalty or a uniquely sovereign right; the judge added, as an alternative, that a public policy exception would apply, referring to the UN Convention Against Corruption (paras 3299–3301, 3304).
- In our view, firms that pay introducers should treat an intermediary with outsized success, one dominant client and no visible infrastructure as a warning sign: those were features the court found reinforced its conclusions here, although the judge stressed that they would not by themselves have been sufficiently cogent evidence of participation (paras 2896–2898).
Free to search across 25 official UK databases — no account needed. Explore the authorities behind this case:
Read the full judgment: The Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Rajaan Al-Wazzan [2026] EWHC 2847 (Comm) (The National Archives).