Can Fraud Reopen an Arbitral Award?

Complex, cross-border corporate transactions – from share acquisitions to joint ventures – frequently give rise to disputes. When those disputes are referred to arbitration and resolved by a final award, the question of finality should be settled. 

But what happens when allegations of fraud, bribery or other misconduct in the underlying deal surface months or even years after the deadline to challenge the award has passed? Can such allegations reopen what was meant to be final? And does it matter whether the alleged wrongdoing applies to the transaction or the arbitral process?

Recent decisions from Hong Kong and the US suggest that courts in both jurisdictions are generally reluctant to reopen arbitral awards where fraud or bribery allegations relate to the underlying commercial transaction rather than the arbitral proceedings. While the courts reach broadly similar conclusions, they do so through different procedural frameworks.

A sharper divergence emerges where the alleged fraud is discovered only after the deadline for challenging the award has expired. Hong Kong courts have taken a stricter, finality-driven approach, while certain US courts retain a more flexible, equitable mechanism that may, in exceptional cases, permit supplemental relief.

Global Mining Development L.P. and Gerald Metals LLC v. China National Gold Group Hong Kong Limited and Soremi Investments Limited [2026] HKCFI 902 (G Parties v. CNG)

The enforcement battle in G Parties v. CNG underscores the Hong Kong courts' long-standing commitment to arbitral finality.

The case concerns shareholder disputes arising out of a 2013 Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and a 2014 Shareholders Agreement (SHA) under which CNG acquired a 65% stake in a BVI-incorporated joint venture vehicle. Following disagreements between the parties in connection with these agreements, G Parties commenced an HKIAC arbitration in November 2020.

The tribunal issued four awards in favour of G Parties, including orders requiring CNG to transfer its shares back and pay substantial damages. CNG resisted enforcement of these awards across multiple jurisdictions.

In July 2025, more than two years after the first partial award, CNG launched a new HKIAC arbitration against G Parties, alleging that the SPA and SHA had been procured through and tainted by fraudulent acts, especially bribery. CNG claimed that G Parties’ witness had deliberately given false evidence to conceal the bribery during the first arbitration and sought rescission of both agreements on this basis.

In response, G Parties applied for an anti-arbitration injunction, which was granted. The High Court of Hong Kong upheld the following key principles:

• Section 81 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (HKAO), adopting Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, provides for the exclusive route to set aside an arbitral award seated in Hong Kong. 1  While fraud may be a basis for a set-aside application, a party cannot repackage such a challenge through new arbitration proceedings. 2
• The three-month time limit under Section 81 HKAO for setting aside an award cannot be extended by the court, even where evidence of fraudulent conduct is only discovered later. 3
• To set aside an award for bribery or fraud, the alleged misconduct must relate to the arbitral process, rather than the underlying commercial dealings, to fall within the jurisdiction of the supervisory court. 4  In this case, CNG's bribery allegations, even if true, concerned how the SPA and the SHA were originally procured and not any impropriety during the arbitral proceedings. As such, the allegations cannot support a set-aside application. 5

Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco C.A., No. 21-14504 (11th Cir. 2024) (CME v FMO)

Across the Pacific, courts in the US have been confronted with similar facts in a corporate dispute context and reached a comparable conclusion, albeit through a different procedural framework.

In CME v. FMO, the BVI-incorporated commodities trader CME obtained a USD 187.9m award seated in New York against FMO, a Venezuelan state-owned mining company, for disputes arising out of a contract for the management of FMO's iron ore operations.

During the arbitration, FMO argued that the underlying contract was void because it had been procured through the bribery of a foreign public official. The tribunal permitted extensive document production but ultimately rejected the corruption allegations for lack of evidence and found for CME.

Section 10(a)(1) of the United States Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) permits the challenge against an award "procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means". 6  FMO, however, did not seek to challenge the award within the three-month deadline set under Section 12 FAA. When CME later sought to enforce the award in Miami, Florida, FMO objected, relying on Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to argue that the alleged bribery violated US public policy.

FMO’s defence was rejected at first instance based on its failure to challenge the award within the three-month vacatur period. 7  On appeal, however, the Eleventh Circuit found that, since Section 10 of the FAA, the applicable domestic law, does not recognise "public policy" as a ground for setting aside an award, FMO's failure to seek vacatur within three months on that basis did not preclude it from raising the public policy defence under the New York Convention. 8

Notwithstanding this procedural pathway, FMO’s case failed on the merits. The public policy defence applies only where enforcement would violate the "most basic notions of morality and justice" in the US. 9  Critically, FMO's bribery allegations went to the procurement of the management contract rather than the arbitral process or the award. The court held that FMO was effectively relitigating issues that had already been raised, examined and decided in the arbitration – an impermissible collateral attack on the merits of the award dressed up as a public policy defence. 10

Despite the different procedural frameworks, the courts in Hong Kong and the US deliver a similar message: fraudulent conduct such as bribery tied to the underlying deal is not, on its own, sufficient to revisit or undermine the finality of an arbitral award.

Where the Hong Kong and US courts may diverge, based on recent jurisprudence, regards how they approach fraud affecting the arbitral process.

In the US, courts have shown willingness to relax procedural deadlines where the integrity of the arbitration has been compromised. For instance, in NuVasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, et al., No. 22-10214 (11th Cir. 2023) (NuVasive), a witness was secretly coached through live text messages during a remote hearing. The misconduct was uncovered only after the FAA's three-month vacatur deadline had expired. The Eleventh Circuit, the court that granted enforcement in CME v FMO, found that the misconduct had been intentionally concealed and the complaining party could not reasonably have discovered it earlier.  11  In these extraordinary circumstances, the court applied the doctrine of equitable tolling and vacated the award. 12

In Hong Kong, the court has yet to rule on facts directly comparable to NuVasive. In AW and others v. PY and another [2022] HKCFI 1397 (AW v. PY), a party was alleged to have deliberately withheld key evidence during the arbitration despite the tribunal’s disclosure orders. The concealed evidence was discovered before the three-month deadline expired, but the applicant did not challenge the award in time. The court strictly upheld the procedural deadline, consistent with its approach in G Parties v. CNG.  13

The court also rejected the challenge on the merits, holding that the concealed evidence would not have altered the tribunal's reasoning, which turned primarily on legal analysis. 14

For parties challenging an award

In Hong Kong, the three-month statutory deadline for setting aside an award is applied strictly. Parties involved in corporate disputes who suspect misconduct (e.g. fraud during the arbitral procedure) should promptly investigate and consider preserving any challenges in a timely manner, even if the relevant facts are still being uncovered.

In the US, equitable tolling may apply where fraud in the arbitral process is not reasonably discoverable within the limitation period, but it remains exceptional. The challenging party must show both diligence on its own part and deliberate concealment by the opposing party.

For award creditors seeking enforcement

In Hong Kong, the well-established finality of arbitral awards remains a strong protection for creditors. Courts are willing to grant anti-arbitration or anti-suit injunctions where a losing party attempts to reopen decided issues through new proceedings or other collateral attacks.

Similarly, in the US, the bar for post-award objections based on fraud or public policy grounds is high. Courts are prepared to distinguish issues relating to the underlying commercial transaction from those affecting the procedural integrity of the arbitration and to dismiss disingenuous objections.