Tycoon avoids jail threat over ‘missing’ millions
And the judge was told that Scot Young had “made further financial provision” for his wife Michelle pending their divorce.
But Ms Young’s lawyers said they were not satisfied her husband was making the “full and frank disclosure” required of him to avoid a suspended six-month prison sentence for contempt of court.
The case against Mr Young, 47, was adjourned until December 17. He agreed that, in the meantime, the threat of jail for failing to disclose details of his finances would remain hanging over him, his passport would remain impounded and he would answer a questionnaire setting out alleged “deficiencies” in the information he has so far provided.
Mr Young insists his property empire has collapsed, he is being pursued for £28.6m by creditors and he expects to be made bankrupt.
But Ms Young, who is suing for divorce and maintenance, plus a large share of his assets, does not believe him and wants to know what has happened to the £400 million which she says he was worth only three years ago.
Since an earlier hearing she has been ordered by a local court to vacate her home in fashionable Regents Park Terrace, central London, with daughters Scarlet, 17, and Sasha, 15, by November 25.
Her husband had been paying the £10,000-a-month rent on the property, plus the girls’ £36,000-a-year private school fees.
It is not known how her circumstances may have changed in light of her husband’s “further financial provision”, which is understood to have come from third parties.
Mr Young owned a series of high-value properties, including a £19m family home in Egham, Surrey, which he sold to Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch.
The Youngs married at Chelsea register office in 1995. They later moved to America and last lived together in Miami, Florida, before she returned to Britain in 2006.
David Balcombe QC, for Ms Young, told Mr Justice Bennett that earlier this week Mr Young and his advisers delivered 50 lever-arch files to his wife’s lawyers.
But there was no explanation from Mr Young as to why it had taken him so long to comply with a disclosure order made more than a year ago, nor was there “a hint of contrition” on his part.
“We have come to the firm conclusion that his disclosure has not been full and frank,” said Mr Balcombe.
Following the next hearing in December, Mr Young is expected to face cross-examination about his finances.
