AG v Useni and Anor [2022] JRC 230 (19 May 2022)

AG v Useni and Anor [2022] JRC 230 (19 May 2022)

The First Respondent failed to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the funds in the bank accounts were not tainted property. The explanation of accumulation through gifts was not credible given the sums involved, the lack of evidence, and the context of his public office. The accounts were opened under a false name to conceal ownership. The Attorney General's belief that the funds were proceeds of corruption or misconduct in public office was reasonable. The application for release of funds for legal expenses was properly refused, and the Second Respondent was entitled to costs from the forfeited funds.

Citation
[2022] JRC 230
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; First Respondent: Jeremiah Timbut Useni; Second Respondent: Standard Chartered Bank (Jersey) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture of Assets (civil Proceedings) / Judgment on Application for Forfeiture Order and Related Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
forfeiture order granted
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Tainted Property, Money Laundering, Misconduct in Public Office, Human Rights (fair Trial), Costs Orders
Civil Forfeiture Criminal Law Public Law Forfeiture of Tainted Property Money Laundering Misconduct in Public Office Human Rights (fair Trial) Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Jeremiah Timbut Useni

First Respondent

Standard Chartered Bank (Jersey) Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture of Assets (civil Proceedings) / Judgment on Application for Forfeiture Order and Related Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the funds in the bank accounts are 'tainted property' under the Forfeiture of Assets (Civil Proceedings) (Jersey) Law 2018
  2. 2 Whether the First Respondent has satisfied the burden of proof that the property is not tainted property
  3. 3 Whether the First Respondent is entitled to legal funding from the restrained funds

Ratio Decidendi

The First Respondent failed to satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the funds in the bank accounts were not tainted property. The explanation of accumulation through gifts was not credible given the sums involved, the lack of evidence, and the context of his public office. The accounts were opened under a false name to conceal ownership. The Attorney General's belief that the funds were proceeds of corruption or misconduct in public office was reasonable. The application for release of funds for legal expenses was properly refused, and the Second Respondent was entitled to costs from the forfeited funds.

Court Disposition

forfeiture order granted

Orders

  • Forfeiture Order made in respect of all funds within the bank accounts
  • Second Respondent to pay over the totality of the funds in the bank accounts to the Viscount