Attorney General v Dugasse (09 of 2009) [2010] SCSC 95 (6 October 2010)

Attorney General v Dugasse (09 of 2009) [2010] SCSC 95 (6 October 2010)

The respondent failed to provide credible and substantiated evidence that the seized cash was from legitimate sources. The affidavits and circumstances established reasonable grounds to believe the cash was benefit from or intended for use in criminal conduct, justifying forfeiture under section 35(1) of the AMLA.

Citation
[2010] SCSC 95
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: William Dominic Dugasse
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
6 October 2010
Case Number
09 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Forfeiture Order Application After Seizure Order
Outcome
Forfeiture order granted
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime, Seizure of Cash, Drug Trafficking
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Anti Money Laundering Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Seizure of Cash Drug Trafficking

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

William Dominic Dugasse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Forfeiture Order Application After Seizure Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized cash constitutes benefit from criminal conduct or was intended for use in connection with criminal conduct
  2. 2 Whether the respondent provided a satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to provide credible and substantiated evidence that the seized cash was from legitimate sources. The affidavits and circumstances established reasonable grounds to believe the cash was benefit from or intended for use in criminal conduct, justifying forfeiture under section 35(1) of the AMLA.

Court Disposition

Forfeiture order granted

Orders

  • Forfeiture of USD 10,000 and €6,000 seized from the respondent under section 35(1) of the AMLA