Financial Intelligence Unit v Sentry Global Securities Ltd & Ors (SCA 21 of 2011) [2012] SCCA 27 (7 December 2012)

Financial Intelligence Unit v Sentry Global Securities Ltd & Ors (SCA 21 of 2011) [2012] SCCA 27 (7 December 2012)

The Court of Appeal held that the Chief Justice erred in law by requiring a higher evidential threshold than that set by POCCCA. The Act only requires reasonable grounds for the belief of the designated officer that the property is the proceeds of crime, not the best evidence or proof of a predicate offence. As the respondents did not contest the application and the FIU's affidavit set out uncontested grounds for belief, the statutory threshold was met and the interlocutory order should be granted.

Citation
[2012] SCCA 27
Parties
Appellant: Financial Intelligence Unit; Respondent: Sentry Global Securities Ltd; Respondent: Barclays Bank (Seychelles) Ltd; Respondent: Respondents 1-13 (various accountholders)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
7 December 2012
Case Number
SCA 21 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Evidential Threshold, Reverse Burden of Proof, Appointment of Receiver
Source Language
English
Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Anti Money Laundering Interlocutory Orders Evidential Threshold Reverse Burden of Proof Appointment of Receiver

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Intelligence Unit

Appellant

Sentry Global Securities Ltd

Respondent

Barclays Bank (Seychelles) Ltd

Respondent

Respondents 1-13 (various accountholders)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant met the evidential threshold under section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008 for an interlocutory order
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Justice erred in law by requiring a higher standard of proof than required by POCCCA
  3. 3 Whether belief evidence under section 9 of POCCCA suffices for the making of an interlocutory order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Chief Justice erred in law by requiring a higher evidential threshold than that set by POCCCA. The Act only requires reasonable grounds for the belief of the designated officer that the property is the proceeds of crime, not the best evidence or proof of a predicate offence. As the respondents did not contest the application and the FIU's affidavit set out uncontested grounds for belief, the statutory threshold was met and the interlocutory order should be granted.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutory order granted under section 4 POCCCA prohibiting respondents or any person with notice from dealing with the specified property in the accounts.
  • Liam Hogan appointed as Receiver under section 8 POCCCA to hold the property in an interest-bearing account at Barclays Bank (Seychelles) Ltd.