Financial Intelligence Unit v Cyber Space Ltd (SCA 27 of 2012) [2013] SCCA 2 (3 May 2013)

Financial Intelligence Unit v Cyber Space Ltd (SCA 27 of 2012) [2013] SCCA 2 (3 May 2013)

The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's assets were proceeds of crime as required under s 4 of POCA, due to insufficient evidence of copyright infringement, lack of proof of criminal conduct under Seychelles law, and procedural irregularities at trial. The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's decision was correct.

Citation
[2013] SCCA 2
Parties
Appellant: Financial Intelligence Unit; Respondent: Cyber Space Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
3 May 2013
Case Number
SCA 27 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Copyright Infringement, Money Laundering, Internet Law, Burden of Proof, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Copyright Infringement Money Laundering Internet Law Burden of Proof +1 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Intelligence Unit

Appellant

Cyber Space Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's assets are proceeds of crime under POCA
  2. 2 Whether internet copyright infringement occurred and is criminally actionable in Seychelles
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a prima facie case under s 4 of POCA

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's assets were proceeds of crime as required under s 4 of POCA, due to insufficient evidence of copyright infringement, lack of proof of criminal conduct under Seychelles law, and procedural irregularities at trial. The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's decision was correct.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • No interlocutory order granted under s 4 of POCA