Mares Corp v Financial Intelligence Unit (No. 63 of 2011) [2012] SCSC 21 (3 June 2012)

Mares Corp v Financial Intelligence Unit (No. 63 of 2011) [2012] SCSC 21 (3 June 2012)

The respondent has no legal authority to continue freezing the applicant's account as there is no ongoing legal proceeding before the court, no court order authorising the freeze, and the respondent has failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's directive to commence proceedings. The continued freezing of the account is unjust, oppressive, and an abuse of the court's process.

Citation
[2012] SCSC 21
Parties
Applicant: Mares Corp; Respondent: Financial Intelligence Unit
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
3 June 2012
Case Number
No. 63 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Freezing of Bank Accounts, Retrospective Application of Law, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction of Court
Source Language
English
Banking Law Anti Money Laundering Civil Procedure Freezing of Bank Accounts Retrospective Application of Law Abuse of Process Jurisdiction of Court

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mares Corp

Applicant

Financial Intelligence Unit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent can lawfully continue to freeze the applicant's bank account without a court order under the current law
  2. 2 Whether the amendments to the Anti Money Laundering Act, 2006 as amended by Act 24 of 2011 apply retrospectively
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to an abuse of court process

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent has no legal authority to continue freezing the applicant's account as there is no ongoing legal proceeding before the court, no court order authorising the freeze, and the respondent has failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's directive to commence proceedings. The continued freezing of the account is unjust, oppressive, and an abuse of the court's process.

Court Disposition

Application allowed with costs

Orders

  • FIU is directed to release the applicant’s funds forthwith.
  • Applicant awarded costs.