Property unlawfully seized from a businessman during a police search of his home must be returned ‘forthwith’, a court has ruled.

Jonathan Haywood lodged a doleance claim against the Chief Constable and the Court of General Gaol Delivery after police executed a search in September 2025 as part of an investigation into suspected money laundering.

During the search various items of property belonging to Mr Haywood and his family were seized.

In June, the court quashed the warrant issued by the Deemster Graeme Cook, declaring it invalid and ruling that the entry into the claimant’s home and the seizure of various items was unlawful.

In a judgment handed down last week, Deemster Andrew Corlett agreed the exercise had been something of a ‘fishing expedition’.

He said the warrant was drafted in a ‘wide and unfocussed’ way leading to personal family belongings being seized which had no connection with Mr Haywood’s virtual assets service provider business.

Deemster Corlett concluded the property must be returned forthwith, and ordered that copies of data already extracted should be destroyed or permanently deleted.

He said he was satisfied that had the correct information been given to Deemster Cook, he would have concluded that a search and seizure order was inappropriate and at the very most issued a less invasive production order instead.

Deemster Corlett described the evidence of alleged money laundering as ‘less than overwhelming’.

He pointed out that much of the seized material has yet to be accessed and reviewed and neither Mr Haywood nor anyone else has been charged in connection with ‘Operation Jutland’.

The court heard Mr Haywood’s regulated business had a satisfactory record of compliance since 2024. He’d contacted police in May 2025 with a query about ‘crime-linked crypto wallets’ and had been frustrated not receive assistance.

Police told the court that most of the property had already been returned, although digital images had been retained by police ‘pending evidential review’.

Deemster Corlett said the police had not acted in bad faith, and their failings represented ‘a lack of rigour rather than any deliberate misconduct’.