What is the current state of the law on a motion seeking an injunction restraining disposition of the assets of a defendant in a fraud case?

This does not complete a full consideration of the motion. An injunction is an equitable remedy and, accordingly, there are other requirements which need to be fulfilled. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, in the present day, the "fraud exception" should be seen as a natural outgrowth from the Mareva injunction. That form of injunction requires a demonstration that the assets of the defendant are being or will be dissipated and that, therefore, they will no longer be available for execution after judgment. It is his view that an injunction based on Mills and Mills v. Petrovic (supra) need not require this evidence because dissipation should be inferred from the demonstrated case for fraud. The case law does not support the view that this inference is a necessary result of the presence of a strong case for fraud. In Mills, in the third paragraph, the court indicates that: It is the plaintiffs' contention that if they do not obtain an injunction restraining disposition of the defendants' house success at trial would be academic because there would be nothing against which it could be executed.