Assets worth a combined £50 million, including a yacht, have been frozen after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) secured an unexplained wealth order against two British nationals.

The action targeting the unnamed man and woman represents only the second time such an order has been granted since powers came into force in January 2018.

Items affected include a £1.9 million yacht, a bank account containing roughly £2.6 million, eight vehicles worth around £600,000, and several high-value properties in England, France, Spain and Portugal, the CPS said.

The pair and their associated companies have three months to prove the funds were legally sourced.

Should they fail to clarify the money's origin, the CPS can apply to permanently seize the assets without a criminal conviction.

An interim property freezing order has been issued under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 to investigate the laundering of international illicit funds in the UK, the CPS added.

Adrian Foster, chief crown prosecutor for the CPS’s proceeds of crime division, said: “We have successfully obtained an unexplained wealth order and interim property freezing order against two British nationals and their associated companies in the United Kingdom.

“They are now legally required to prove how they obtained their wealth, or risk having their assets seized following an application by the CPS’s Civil Recovery Team.”

The wealth order against the two British nationals was granted by the High Court on Friday, with the next hearing to be held at the same court on a later date.

The power, which allows authorities to take back money suspected to have been made through crime, was brought in under so-called McMafia laws – named after the BBC organised crime drama and the book which inspired it.

In 2024, Zamira Hajiyeva forfeited a house worth more than £14 million and a golf club in Ascot after she was made subject to the UK’s first wealth order.

The National Crime Agency said it believed the assets were obtained as a “direct result of large-scale fraud and embezzlement, false accounting and money laundering”, adding that “no reasonable explanation” was provided for the source of funds used to purchase either property.