Client Alert: World Uyghur Congress v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Can Forced Labour Goods Cause UK Money Laundering Violations?
On 20 January 2023, the High Court in London issued a historic judgment in relation to the World Uyghur Congress’ (WUC) challenge to the UK government’s failure to investigate the importation of cotton produced in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang). WUC’s concerns at the heart of this litigation are well documented: that cotton exported out of China to the UK and elsewhere is produced by forced labour in Xinjiang where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has concluded that China committed “serious human rights violations” against Uyghur and “other predominantly Muslim communities.”
WUC argued that the UK government ought to have actively investigated and thereafter prohibited the importation of cotton goods originating from Xinjiang under two pieces of legislation:
- The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2002 Act): the 2002 Act includes various money laundering offences preventing dealings with criminal property (i.e. property that constitutes or represents a person’s benefit from criminal conduct, wherever in the world that conduct takes place, including for example in this case offences of forced labour contrary to section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015).
- Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 (1897 Act): section 1 of the 1897 Act prohibits the import into the UK of goods produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison.
The judgment highlighted at the outset that the underlying evidence in the case in relation to the mistreatment of the Uyghur people and the incidence of human rights abuses in the production of cotton in Xinjiang was not the subject of dispute. Rather, the dispute concerned whether there was enough evidence to investigate this issue under the 1897 Act and 2002 Act.
The judgment noted that a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report[1] attested that forced labour was “pervasive” and “widespread” but also “extremely difficult to monitor effectively”. The FAC report also recommended that, given the mass incarcerations, and connected factories and farms in Xinjiang, it should be assumed that any product originating from Xinjiang is the product of forced labour unless proven otherwise.
Nonetheless, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that specific consignments of goods imported to the UK from China were produced by forced labour or in foreign prisons under the 2002 Act and 1897 Act respectively. The court considered the evidence of the statistical risk of goods being made with forced labour or in foreign prisons insufficient to prove that a specific consignment of goods was produced by forced or imprisoned labour. Further, the court found that the FAC’s recommendation, which “was undoubtedly made in recognition of the difficulties of establishing the necessary proof in relation to a specific consignment of goods that it was produced by forced labour”, underlines the difficulties of meeting the evidential requirements in the 2002 Act and 1897 Act. This outcome notably contrasts with the approach the United States has taken to prohibit the import of all goods containing content derived from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
While the court dismissed WUC’s challenge in this case, this decision leaves the door open for future UK money laundering enforcement in relation to goods made with forced labour. The judgment accepts that the 2002 Act is capable of applying in cases concerning the proceeds of human rights abuses as criminal property under the 2002 Act. Therefore, if more evidence comes to light of specific consignments linked to forced labour, there could be money laundering enforcement under the 2002 Act against companies in the UK that are trading in goods produced through forced labour.[2] It will also be interesting to see whether this decision will lead banks (who as regulated entities are under an obligation to disclose their knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the UK authorities) to consider reporting transactions involving goods potentially made with forced labour to the UK authorities.
Moreover, this may not be the end of the instant case, as the WUC said that it is considering appealing the High Court judgment.
WUC argued that the UK government ought to have actively investigated and thereafter prohibited the importation of cotton goods originating from Xinjiang under two pieces of legislation:
- The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2002 Act): the 2002 Act includes various money laundering offences preventing dealings with criminal property (i.e. property that constitutes or represents a person’s benefit from criminal conduct, wherever in the world that conduct takes place, including for example in this case offences of forced labour contrary to section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015).
- Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 (1897 Act): section 1 of the 1897 Act prohibits the import into the UK of goods produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison.
The judgment highlighted at the outset that the underlying evidence in the case in relation to the mistreatment of the Uyghur people and the incidence of human rights abuses in the production of cotton in Xinjiang was not the subject of dispute. Rather, the dispute concerned whether there was enough evidence to investigate this issue under the 1897 Act and 2002 Act.
The judgment noted that a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report[1] attested that forced labour was “pervasive” and “widespread” but also “extremely difficult to monitor effectively”. The FAC report also recommended that, given the mass incarcerations, and connected factories and farms in Xinjiang, it should be assumed that any product originating from Xinjiang is the product of forced labour unless proven otherwise.
Nonetheless, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that specific consignments of goods imported to the UK from China were produced by forced labour or in foreign prisons under the 2002 Act and 1897 Act respectively. The court considered the evidence of the statistical risk of goods being made with forced labour or in foreign prisons insufficient to prove that a specific consignment of goods was produced by forced or imprisoned labour. Further, the court found that the FAC’s recommendation, which “was undoubtedly made in recognition of the difficulties of establishing the necessary proof in relation to a specific consignment of goods that it was produced by forced labour”, underlines the difficulties of meeting the evidential requirements in the 2002 Act and 1897 Act. This outcome notably contrasts with the approach the United States has taken to prohibit the import of all goods containing content derived from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
While the court dismissed WUC’s challenge in this case, this decision leaves the door open for future UK money laundering enforcement in relation to goods made with forced labour. The judgment accepts that the 2002 Act is capable of applying in cases concerning the proceeds of human rights abuses as criminal property under the 2002 Act. Therefore, if more evidence comes to light of specific consignments linked to forced labour, there could be money laundering enforcement under the 2002 Act against companies in the UK that are trading in goods produced through forced labour.[2] It will also be interesting to see whether this decision will lead banks (who as regulated entities are under an obligation to disclose their knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the UK authorities) to consider reporting transactions involving goods potentially made with forced labour to the UK authorities.
Moreover, this may not be the end of the instant case, as the WUC said that it is considering appealing the High Court judgment.
[1] “Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond”
[2] Even if there is sufficient evidence that specific consignments amount to criminal property under the 2002 Act, as the court noted, a prosecution may fail because the 2002 Act provides a defence to certain money laundering allegations for those who have acquired criminal property for adequate consideration.
Footnotes
[1] “Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond”
[2] Even if there is sufficient evidence that specific consignments amount to criminal property under the 2002 Act, as the court noted, a prosecution may fail because the 2002 Act provides a defence to certain money laundering allegations for those who have acquired criminal property for adequate consideration.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
On 20 January 2023, the High Court in London issued a historic judgment in relation to the World Uyghur Congress’ (WUC) challenge to the UK government’s failure to investigate the importation of cotton produced in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang). WUC’s concerns at the heart of this litigation are well documented: that cotton exported out of China to the UK and elsewhere is produced by forced labour in Xinjiang where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has concluded that China committed “serious human rights violations” against Uyghur and “other predominantly Muslim communities.”
WUC argued that the UK government ought to have actively investigated and thereafter prohibited the importation of cotton goods originating from Xinjiang under two pieces of legislation:
- The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2002 Act): the 2002 Act includes various money laundering offences preventing dealings with criminal property (i.e. property that constitutes or represents a person’s benefit from criminal conduct, wherever in the world that conduct takes place, including for example in this case offences of forced labour contrary to section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015).
- Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 (1897 Act): section 1 of the 1897 Act prohibits the import into the UK of goods produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison.
The judgment highlighted at the outset that the underlying evidence in the case in relation to the mistreatment of the Uyghur people and the incidence of human rights abuses in the production of cotton in Xinjiang was not the subject of dispute. Rather, the dispute concerned whether there was enough evidence to investigate this issue under the 1897 Act and 2002 Act.
The judgment noted that a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report[1] attested that forced labour was “pervasive” and “widespread” but also “extremely difficult to monitor effectively”. The FAC report also recommended that, given the mass incarcerations, and connected factories and farms in Xinjiang, it should be assumed that any product originating from Xinjiang is the product of forced labour unless proven otherwise.
Nonetheless, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that specific consignments of goods imported to the UK from China were produced by forced labour or in foreign prisons under the 2002 Act and 1897 Act respectively. The court considered the evidence of the statistical risk of goods being made with forced labour or in foreign prisons insufficient to prove that a specific consignment of goods was produced by forced or imprisoned labour. Further, the court found that the FAC’s recommendation, which “was undoubtedly made in recognition of the difficulties of establishing the necessary proof in relation to a specific consignment of goods that it was produced by forced labour”, underlines the difficulties of meeting the evidential requirements in the 2002 Act and 1897 Act. This outcome notably contrasts with the approach the United States has taken to prohibit the import of all goods containing content derived from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
While the court dismissed WUC’s challenge in this case, this decision leaves the door open for future UK money laundering enforcement in relation to goods made with forced labour. The judgment accepts that the 2002 Act is capable of applying in cases concerning the proceeds of human rights abuses as criminal property under the 2002 Act. Therefore, if more evidence comes to light of specific consignments linked to forced labour, there could be money laundering enforcement under the 2002 Act against companies in the UK that are trading in goods produced through forced labour.[2] It will also be interesting to see whether this decision will lead banks (who as regulated entities are under an obligation to disclose their knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the UK authorities) to consider reporting transactions involving goods potentially made with forced labour to the UK authorities.
Moreover, this may not be the end of the instant case, as the WUC said that it is considering appealing the High Court judgment.
WUC argued that the UK government ought to have actively investigated and thereafter prohibited the importation of cotton goods originating from Xinjiang under two pieces of legislation:
- The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2002 Act): the 2002 Act includes various money laundering offences preventing dealings with criminal property (i.e. property that constitutes or represents a person’s benefit from criminal conduct, wherever in the world that conduct takes place, including for example in this case offences of forced labour contrary to section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015).
- Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 (1897 Act): section 1 of the 1897 Act prohibits the import into the UK of goods produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison.
The judgment highlighted at the outset that the underlying evidence in the case in relation to the mistreatment of the Uyghur people and the incidence of human rights abuses in the production of cotton in Xinjiang was not the subject of dispute. Rather, the dispute concerned whether there was enough evidence to investigate this issue under the 1897 Act and 2002 Act.
The judgment noted that a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report[1] attested that forced labour was “pervasive” and “widespread” but also “extremely difficult to monitor effectively”. The FAC report also recommended that, given the mass incarcerations, and connected factories and farms in Xinjiang, it should be assumed that any product originating from Xinjiang is the product of forced labour unless proven otherwise.
Nonetheless, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that specific consignments of goods imported to the UK from China were produced by forced labour or in foreign prisons under the 2002 Act and 1897 Act respectively. The court considered the evidence of the statistical risk of goods being made with forced labour or in foreign prisons insufficient to prove that a specific consignment of goods was produced by forced or imprisoned labour. Further, the court found that the FAC’s recommendation, which “was undoubtedly made in recognition of the difficulties of establishing the necessary proof in relation to a specific consignment of goods that it was produced by forced labour”, underlines the difficulties of meeting the evidential requirements in the 2002 Act and 1897 Act. This outcome notably contrasts with the approach the United States has taken to prohibit the import of all goods containing content derived from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
While the court dismissed WUC’s challenge in this case, this decision leaves the door open for future UK money laundering enforcement in relation to goods made with forced labour. The judgment accepts that the 2002 Act is capable of applying in cases concerning the proceeds of human rights abuses as criminal property under the 2002 Act. Therefore, if more evidence comes to light of specific consignments linked to forced labour, there could be money laundering enforcement under the 2002 Act against companies in the UK that are trading in goods produced through forced labour.[2] It will also be interesting to see whether this decision will lead banks (who as regulated entities are under an obligation to disclose their knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the UK authorities) to consider reporting transactions involving goods potentially made with forced labour to the UK authorities.
Moreover, this may not be the end of the instant case, as the WUC said that it is considering appealing the High Court judgment.
[1] “Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond”
[2] Even if there is sufficient evidence that specific consignments amount to criminal property under the 2002 Act, as the court noted, a prosecution may fail because the 2002 Act provides a defence to certain money laundering allegations for those who have acquired criminal property for adequate consideration.
Footnotes
[1] “Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond”
[2] Even if there is sufficient evidence that specific consignments amount to criminal property under the 2002 Act, as the court noted, a prosecution may fail because the 2002 Act provides a defence to certain money laundering allegations for those who have acquired criminal property for adequate consideration.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026