Financial Intelligence Unit v DCA Group Ltd and Another (24 of 2011) [2011] SCSC 35 (29 May 2011)

On a balance of probability, the evidence shows the specified property is wholly or in part directly or indirectly benefit from criminal conduct, justifying the orders sought under POCA.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2011] SCSC 35
Parties: Applicant: Financial Intelligence Unit; Respondent No.1: DCA Group Ltd; Respondent No.2: BMI Offshore Bank (Seychelles) Ltd
Court: Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Seychelles
Judgment Date: 29 May 2011
Case Number: 24 of 2011
Procedural Posture: Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome: Application allowed
Legal Topics: Civil Confiscation, Receivership, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language: english

Proceeds of Crime Anti Money Laundering Civil Confiscation Receivership Interlocutory Orders

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Financial Intelligence Unit

Applicant

DCA Group Ltd

Respondent No.1

BMI Offshore Bank (Seychelles) Ltd

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

1 Whether the specified property is benefit from criminal conduct under POCA
2 Whether interlocutory orders prohibiting dealing with the property and appointing a receiver should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probability, the evidence shows the specified property is wholly or in part directly or indirectly benefit from criminal conduct, justifying the orders sought under POCA.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

Interlocutory order prohibiting respondents or any person with notice from disposing of or dealing with the specified property
Appointment of Liam Hogan as Receiver of the specified property with terms to take possession, place in interest bearing account, and subject to court directions

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.