The Government of Seychelles v Reginald (MC 74 of 2020) [2023] SCSC 51 (30 January 2023)

The Government of Seychelles v Reginald (MC 74 of 2020) [2023] SCSC 51 (30 January 2023)

The applicant established reasonable grounds to believe the property was derived from criminal conduct, and the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of legitimate origin for the funds. The requirements of Section 4 of the POCA were met, justifying the interlocutory order prohibiting dealing with the property and appointing a receiver.

Citation
[2023] SCSC 51
Parties
Applicant: Government of Seychelles; Respondent: Selwyn Reginald
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
30 January 2023
Case Number
MC 74 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Forfeiture/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Interlocutory order granted in favour of the applicant.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking, Interlocutory Orders, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Drug Trafficking Interlocutory Orders Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Government of Seychelles

Applicant

Selwyn Reginald

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Forfeiture/interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized property constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under the POCA Act
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established reasonable grounds for an interlocutory order prohibiting dealing with the property
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has rebutted the presumption that the property is proceeds of crime

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established reasonable grounds to believe the property was derived from criminal conduct, and the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of legitimate origin for the funds. The requirements of Section 4 of the POCA were met, justifying the interlocutory order prohibiting dealing with the property and appointing a receiver.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • Interlocutory order prohibiting the respondent or any person with notice from dealing with the specified property under Section 4 of the POCA.
  • Appointment of Inspector Terence Roseline as receiver of the property under Section 8 of the POCA.