R v D’unienville & Ors (CO 3 of 2025) [2025] SCSC 37 (27 March 2025)

contents of #navigation-content will be placed in [data-offcanvas-body] for tablet/mobile screensize and #navigation-column for desktop screensize. Skip to document content Table of contents Search [] BURHAN J I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel Mr Divino Sabino on behalf of the aforementioned 5th accused in respect of bail. The main grounds urged by learned Counsel for the 5th accused are: The grounds requesting the holding of the 5th accused have not been substantiated. In regards to absconding, the affidavit of the Police is just a mixed a bunch of statements against the 5th accused. He has no access to a sea vessel as he does not own a boat and he has ties in Seychelles like his family and has numerous businesses in the Seychelles. The prosecution contention that the 5th accused would interfere with the witnesses is very weak and submitted that the evidence of the witnesses is based on bank documentation and evidence extracted from mobile phones which the accused cannot interfere with. The accused intends to vehemently fight the case and protect his good name and has no intention of absconding and Court could impose stringent conditions on the accused which he is willing to accept. Learned Counsel also referred to the case of Valabhji v R SCACR 8 of 2022 which gives guidance what Court should consider when considering the risk of absconding. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel and the facts set out in the affidavit dated 17 February 2025 of the 5th accused. I have also considered the objections of learned Counsel for the prosecution Ms Corrine Rose who objects to the granting of bail to the 5th accused. The 5th accused stands charge with the offence of money laundering which attracts a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment on conviction. This in itself, speaks of the seriousness of the offence with which the accused is charged. From the affidavit filed by the prosecution thus far, it is clear that the alleged offence has international ramifications and done by a group of individuals in an organised manner. The alleged predicate offence too is of very serious nature which is human trafficking. Learned Counsel for the prosecution refers to the case of Francis Barreau v Republic ( SCA 7/2011) and submitted that the seriousness of the offence is determined not only by the potential sentence but also by the method of commission and its impact on society. Learned Counsel for the 5th accused refers to the fact that the prosecution has not substantiated its evidence. He also admits thereafter that the prosecution is relying on documentary evidence which his client cannot get access to. If as learned Counsel for the 5th accused states the prosecution is relying on witnesses’ evidence which is supported by bank documents and other documentary evidence such as mobile telephone messages, he cannot at the same time state that the evidence is not substantiated. The seriousness of this offence taken together with the international ramifications concerning the predicate offence of this case and the fact that it has been reported to Court that the offence has the elements of organised crime, create a substantial grounds to believe that the accused would interfere with the witnesses and abscond if released on bail. The mere fact that he has a variety of businesses in Seychelles and has business connections abroad and with the Government, Seychelles Police and Seychelles Prison Officers does not override or devalue the seriousness of the offence and its impact on society. At present, he is an accused facing a serious charge in Court, therefore his business and family connections have no bearing on the facts before Court. I am inclined to agree with the prosecution that even though he may not have a sea vessel, he has the necessary financial means and connections to abscond. In order to explain the sophisticated methods employed in the commission of the offence, the prosecution refers to the fact that the 5th accused has financial resources and international business connections including dealings with foreign entities. They further submit that the investigations reveal, a deliberate financial manipulation, including the use of fraudulent cheque deposits, unauthorised withdrawals and foreign exchange transactions, designed to evade regulatory scrutiny. Further messages extracted from mobile devices seized during the investigation have confirmed the accused role in co-ordinating illicit transactions. The prosecution further contends that the messages establish that the 5th accused knowingly engaged in transactions designed to launder the proceeds of crime and by pass regulatory controls. The accused has sought to explain each and every transaction from paragraph 11 to 25 of his affidavit. However, the messages extracted from the phones of all parties involved in these transactions and other evidence have to be read with his explanations and that could only be done at the trial stage and therefore it would be too premature to decide on his explanations at this stage. As at today, since the last date, it appears by charge sheet dated 26th March 2025 another two additional charges of money laundering have been brought against the 5th accused totalling the number of charges against him to three. For all the aforementioned reasons and for the reasons set out in the Order of this Court dated 31 January 2025, I proceed to decline the application for bail in respect of the 5th accused and am satisfied on consideration of all the above facts that substantial grounds exist for the further remand of the 5th accused into custody. The application for bail is declined. The need to consider stringent conditions therefore does not arise. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 27 March 2025. ____________ M Burhan J 4