Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd & Ors (MC 95/2016) [2018] SCSC 8195 (18 June 2018)

Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd & Ors (MC 95/2016) [2018] SCSC 8195 (18 June 2018)

The court found that although the Respondents engaged in tax avoidance and regulatory arbitrage, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the specified property constituted the benefit of criminal conduct as defined under the amended POCA and AMLA. The evidence from the FSA and Revenue Commission indicated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8195
Parties
Applicant: Financial Intelligence Unit; First Respondent: Contact Lenses Limited; Second Respondent: John Dreyer; Third Respondent: Donna Dreyer; Fourth Respondent: Maple Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 June 2018
Case Number
MC 95/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application (interlocutory Order and Receivership) / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Civil Confiscation, Tax Avoidance Vs. Evasion, International Business Companies, Regulatory Arbitrage, Burden of Proof in POCA Applications
Source Language
english
Proceeds of Crime Anti Money Laundering Tax Law Company Law Civil Confiscation Tax Avoidance Vs. Evasion International Business Companies Regulatory Arbitrage +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Intelligence Unit

Applicant

Contact Lenses Limited

First Respondent

John Dreyer

Second Respondent

Donna Dreyer

Third Respondent

Maple Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application (interlocutory Order and Receivership) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified property constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under POCA
  2. 2 Whether tax avoidance by a Seychelles IBC amounts to criminal conduct
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' property is liable to civil confiscation under POCA

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the Respondents engaged in tax avoidance and regulatory arbitrage, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the specified property constituted the benefit of criminal conduct as defined under the amended POCA and AMLA. The evidence from the FSA and Revenue Commission indicated exploitation of legal loopholes, not criminal conduct. No mutual assistance request or proof of tax evasion in another jurisdiction was adduced. Therefore, the application for interlocutory and receivership orders was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory and receivership orders refused
  • Copy of judgment to be served on Revenue Commission and Attorney General