What is the jurisdiction of the English court where breach of fiduciary duty by a non-resident trustee amounts to unlawful tax avoidance or fraud?

Two recent cases illustrate where evidentially: (i) breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) unlawful tax avoidance; and (iii) fraud, can all potentially intersect in a trust or probate dispute. Therefore, a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a non-resident trustee can trigger a tax investigation in the UK. See:

(a)        Van Zuylen v Whiston-Dew & Anor [2021] – see my blog, ‘Investment Fund Fraud – Jurisdiction of English court’ (Google ‘Carl’s Wealth Planning blog’ and use the search box to find). Judge Nicholas Thompsell stated:– ‘[The Defendant argued] that this court had no jurisdiction as the matters in question fell to be determined by the courts of St Kitts and Nevis under the terms applicable to the [2nd] Trust. … [The] point was utterly without merit given that the Claimant has not made any claim for breach of the [2nd] Trust and has never bound herself to any foreign jurisdiction. Her principal complaints against the Defendant were based on his deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and breach of the general prohibition under the FSMA. In addition, I have found that the [2nd] Trust, was used by the Defendant as an instrument of deceit and as such it should be ignored. … In El Anjou, the claimant was the victim of a fraudulent share-selling scheme … The fraudulent scheme involved the transfer of money through various jurisdictions and ultimately into a London-based property development project.
(b)        Reeves v Drew [2022], a contentious probate claim in which: (i) the Claimant’s counsel sought to prove that one of the witnesses [‘W’] (an accountant) was a ‘crook by reference to a [property] transaction [where] the purchase price was misstated in order to effect a tax fraud [and submitted that W] was a crook and his evidence should not therefore be believed [which was allowed] (para 108); and (ii) Judge Michael Green stated, ‘it may necessarily follow that a finding that the deceased did not know and approve the contents carried with it the strong implication that she engineered an extraordinary fraud … it is not necessary for the defendants to prove that this was what happened and that it was fraudulent or dishonest. … The way that the [solicitor] went about the preparation of the will was … quite possibly dishonest. … There could be serious consequences for [the solicitor] as a result of my findings. But it would not be right for me to speculate on this, particularly as the defendants do not allege and do not seek to prove that there was a fraud …’ [paras 344,347,348, 407 & 408].