Is it illegal to hide assets during divorce? It is a question we are asked often. And the answer is clear - yes. Hiding assets during divorce / financial proceedings is not only a serious breach of your legal obligations, it can have significant and far-reaching consequences.

A recent Court of Appeal decision has brought this issue sharply into focus and serves as a powerful reminder of just how seriously the courts take financial disclosure.

The legal obligation to disclose

In financial remedy proceedings, both parties are under a duty to provide full, frank, and accurate disclosure of their financial circumstances. This is not optional. It is a legal obligation, and one that the court takes very seriously.

Where court proceedings are underway, disclosure is formalised through a Form E - a detailed financial statement signed with a statement of truth. Signing that document knowing that the information provided is false or incomplete can amount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, a criminal offence with life changing consequences.

What happens if you hide assets?

The consequences of non-disclosure can be severe:

• The court can set aside a financial order, even years after it was made: a settlement reached on the basis of false or incomplete disclosure is not final. If non-disclosure comes to light later, the case can be reopened.
• Adverse inferences can be drawn: where a party fails to provide proper disclosure, the court can assume the worst and make a financial award on that basis.
• Contempt of court: deliberately misleading the court can result in a fine or even imprisonment.
• Criminal prosecution: in serious cases, providing false information can amount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006.

The duty extends further than many people realise

The duty to disclose is not limited to current assets. Likely future resources - including anticipated gifts of real substance - must also be disclosed.

This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of De La Sala [2026] EWCA Civ 282. The husband had failed to disclose that, before the consent order was made, he knew he was likely to receive a very substantial gift from his wife’s family - ultimately amounting to approximately US$34.77 million across two tranches. The Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of the consent order, finding that this was deliberate material non-disclosure.

Suspicion is not the same as disclosure

A particularly important principle confirmed in De La Sala is that one spouse’s belief or suspicion that the other may have access to undisclosed resources does not relieve that party of their obligation to disclose.

The husband sought to argue that the wife’s own suspicion that he might receive something from her family diminished his disclosure obligations. The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this. A party’s asserted belief is not equivalent to an admitted fact. The duty to disclose rests with each party individually and cannot be transferred or waived.

What does this mean in practice?

If you are going through divorce proceedings, the message is clear - full and frank disclosure is not negotiable. Attempting to conceal assets, understate income, or fail to disclose likely future resources carries very real and very serious legal risk.

And if you suspect that your spouse is not being honest about their finances, trust that instinct. The courts have powerful tools available to investigate, challenge, and pursue non-disclosure. A settlement reached on incomplete information is not a settlement at all.

If you have concerns about financial disclosure in your case, please do get in touch. An initial conversation costs nothing.