A new ADGM court ruling in the latest NMC Healthcare case explains when Banks can be ordered to disclose internal Anti-Money Laundering records in civil disputes.
In the latest NMC Healthcare Judgement dated 26th November 2025 following the collapse of NMC Healthcare, the administrators of NMC have brought claims against several parties, including Bank of Baroda, one of the largest Banks arising out of India. This case is part of the larger NMC lawsuits against its former management and Bank of Baroda, where NMC alleges they were a victim of fraud and mismanagement that led to its untimely demise in operations. In this case, however, the UAE Court was not deciding liability but deciding whether certain banking and compliance documents must be disclosed. The Bank had been involved in many of the disputed transactions at the core of the NMC collapse. Now the administrators for the Insolvency of the firm question what the bank knew and what it did that lead to the collapse of NMC Healthcare, via its Anti-Money Laundering processes.
The Court focused on records linked to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) processes. These included ‘Suspicious Transaction Reports’ (STRs) and internal compliance documents, which were earlier treated as strictly confidential.
What is a Suspicious Transaction Report?
A Suspicious Transaction Report or STR, is a report that a bank or financial institution must file when it suspects money laundering or related financial crimes. Thus, Banks are required by AML laws to monitor customer transactions. If a transaction looks unusual, inconsistent, or potentially linked to crime, the bank must assess it.
If the suspicion remains, the bank files a STR with the Financial Intelligence Unit. The report sets out the details of the transaction, the parties involved, and the reasons for the suspicion.
STRs are not accusations. They are alerts meant to help regulators and law enforcement detect and investigate financial crime.
Due to their sensitive nature, STRs are usually kept strictly confidential since disclosure of such information can risk tipping off customers or even interfering with investigations.
However, now thanks to this ruling, Courts may nevertheless allow STR related materials to be disclosed under the new AML law.
What did the Court have to decide?
Three related applications were brought before the ADGM:
- Firstly, the Set Aside Application filed by the administrators had asked the Court to set aside an earlier order made in June 2025, that had prevented Bank of Baroda from disclosing STRs.
- Second, the Disclosure Application filed by the administrators sought disclosure of internal AML material, including internal reports and documents recording decisions not to file a STR.
- Third, the Bank of Baroda asked the Court to expand confidentiality protection so that the internal AML reports would also remain confidential and undisclosed.
All three applications turned on whether the UAE law still prohibited disclosure in civil pleadings.
What Were the Changes in the UAE AML Laws?
The earlier non-disclosure order was based on the Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2018 on Anti-Money Laundering, Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Financing of Illegal Terrorist Organisations (the 2018 AML Law), which imposed strict confidentiality and criminal penalties for disclosure of internal records or STRs.
However, in the month of October 2025, the 2018 AML Law was repealed and was then replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025 on Anti-Money Laundering, Counter-Terrorism Financing and Counter-Proliferation Financing (the 2025 AML Law). The new law contains a key additional phrase in its application; it allows disclosure in “situations permitted by law”.
Thus, it was up to the ADGM court to decide what that phrase meant.
What Did the Court decide?
The Court held that the phrase “situations permitted by law” is broad. It cannot be limited to permission granted by legislations alone. The Court decided that it can also include permission granted by a court order.
The Court proceeded to grant the Set Aside Application and the Disclosure Application made by the administrators of NMC, while refusing to grant the Banks Application.
In practical terms, this would mean that if a UAE Court orders disclosure under the 2025 AML Law, such disclosure would fall within the scope of the statutory exception.
This marked a clear shift from the earlier position under the 2018 AML Law.
Justice Sir Andrew Smith reached this conclusion after a detailed analysis of Arabic legal terminology, UAE Statutes and prior UAE case laws as well.
All Internal AML Records and STRs Subject to Disclosure? At All Times?
A key practical issue concerned internal AML documentation. Bank of Baroda accepted that internal reports and records of ‘No-STR Decisions’ were relevant. However, it objected that such documents were also protected under the AML confidentiality.
The Court rejected the argument that all internal AML reports are automatically shielded and reiterated that if disclosure is ordered by the Court, and appropriate safeguards are in place, such documents must be produced. Thereby, widening the scope of material that may be examined in claims against Banks.
However, the Court did not state that STRs should routinely be disclosed. It emphasized that AML confidentiality serves a vital public interest and that interest still remains central even under the new 2025 AML Law.
Disclosure will only be allowed where it may genuinely assist the fair resolution of a case. The Court in doing so, must also consider whether disclosure could interfere with investigations or regulatory action.
In short, disclosure is possible, but not automatic.
Why This Matters for Banks and Other Financial Institutions?
This judgement has broadened the implications for banks and other financial institutions operating in the UAE. It confirms that AML confidentiality is not an absolute barrier in civil litigation. Courts now have the authority to permit disclosure where justice requires it.
For Banks, this increases scrutiny of internal compliance processes. However, AML decision making, documentation, and record keeping may become central issues in disputes. At the same time, this judgement reassures institutions that Courts will act cautiously and will weigh public interest concerns carefully.
The Key Takeaways
The decision taken by the ADGM court does not by any means weaken the UAE AML framework. Instead, it recognises that courts must sometimes look past the compliance decisions in order to resolve disputes in a just and fair manner.
For Financial Institutions and Banks, the message is very clear; AML systems must not only meet regulatory standards but also withstand judicial examination, since strictly applying the confidentiality rule would lead to strange results, with regard to both civil litigation and the conduct of ordinary business.
