AG -v- Tantular [2014] JRC 251 (17 December 2014)

AG -v- Tantular [2014] JRC 251 (17 December 2014)

The proceedings are civil and Henderson estoppel is capable of application, but the facts do not amount to abuse of process. The second saisie is justified by the public interest in depriving criminals of proceeds of crime, the existence of separate criminal conduct in the 210 proceedings, and the interlocutory nature of the saisie. Delay and prejudice to beneficiaries do not outweigh these factors; any unnecessary costs can be addressed by costs orders.

Citation
[2014] JRC 251
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; First Respondent: Jasmine Investment Trust; Second Respondent: Mrs Tantular; Third Respondent: Child 1 Tantular; Fourth Respondent: Child 2 Tantular; Fifth Respondent: Child 3 Tantular; Sixth Respondent: Mr Tantular; Seventh Respondent: Wife's younger sister
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Saisie Judiciaire (asset Restraint) / Ruling on Continuation of Interim Saisie
Outcome
Second saisie continued until further order.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Asset Restraint, Confiscation Orders, Henderson Estoppel, Delay, Public Interest, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates International Cooperation Abuse of Process Asset Restraint Confiscation Orders Henderson Estoppel +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Jasmine Investment Trust

First Respondent

Mrs Tantular

Second Respondent

Child 1 Tantular

Third Respondent

Child 2 Tantular

Fourth Respondent

Child 3 Tantular

Fifth Respondent

Mr Tantular

Sixth Respondent

Wife's younger sister

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Saisie Judiciaire (asset Restraint) / Ruling on Continuation of Interim Saisie

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a second saisie constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Applicability of Henderson estoppel to successive applications for asset restraint
  3. 3 Effect of delay and late reliance on new criminal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings are civil and Henderson estoppel is capable of application, but the facts do not amount to abuse of process. The second saisie is justified by the public interest in depriving criminals of proceeds of crime, the existence of separate criminal conduct in the 210 proceedings, and the interlocutory nature of the saisie. Delay and prejudice to beneficiaries do not outweigh these factors; any unnecessary costs can be addressed by costs orders.

Court Disposition

Second saisie continued until further order.

Orders

  • The second saisie is maintained pending the outcome of the 210 proceedings and any external confiscation order.
  • Beneficiaries may apply to vary the saisie if they wish to challenge the scope based on the date of criminal conduct.