Hackl v Financial Intelligence Unit (fiu) & Anor (1 of 2009) [2010] SCCC 1 (2 June 2010)

Hackl v Financial Intelligence Unit (fiu) & Anor (1 of 2009) [2010] SCCC 1 (2 June 2010)

The challenged provisions of POCA and AMLA do not contravene the petitioner's constitutional rights. The right to property is subject to lawful and necessary limitations, including civil forfeiture of proceeds of crime. The proceedings are civil, not criminal, and the statutory procedures provide adequate safeguards for a fair hearing. The Attorney-General's discretion is limited to public interest and does not amount to discrimination or legislative abdication. The petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies. The petition is dismissed.

Citation
[2010] SCCC 1
Parties
Petitioner: Hans Josef Hackl; 1st Respondent: Financial Intelligence Unit; 2nd Respondent: Attorney-General
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
2 June 2010
Case Number
1 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Fair Hearing, Equal Protection of the Law, Separation of Powers, Civil Forfeiture, Money Laundering, Ex Parte Orders
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Right to Property Fair Hearing Equal Protection of the Law Separation of Powers Civil Forfeiture +2 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 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Josef Hackl

Petitioner

Financial Intelligence Unit

1st Respondent

Attorney-General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 3(1), 4(1), and 9 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act (POCA) and section 3(9)(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) contravene the petitioner's constitutional rights to property, fair hearing, equal protection, and separation of powers.

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged provisions of POCA and AMLA do not contravene the petitioner's constitutional rights. The right to property is subject to lawful and necessary limitations, including civil forfeiture of proceeds of crime. The proceedings are civil, not criminal, and the statutory procedures provide adequate safeguards for a fair hearing. The Attorney-General's discretion is limited to public interest and does not amount to discrimination or legislative abdication. The petitioner failed to exhaust statutory remedies. The petition is dismissed.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed in its entirety.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.