Starodubstev & Ors v FIU (MA 24m8/2017 arising in MC 60/2016) [2018] SCSC 8100 (1 March 2018)
The court is bound by the consent judgment, which mandates the Receiver to evaluate claims and report to the court before any refund can be ordered. The court cannot bypass this process or substitute itself for the Receiver.
- Citation
- [2018] SCSC 8100
- Parties
- Applicants: Audrey Starodubstev & Ors; Respondent: Financial Intelligence Unit
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Judgment Date
- 1 March 2018
- Case Number
- MA 24m8/2017 arising in MC 60/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Refund of Funds Under POCCA
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Appointment of Receiver, Refund of Funds, POCCA Section 19, Enforcement of Consent Judgment
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Audrey Starodubstev & Ors
Applicants
Financial Intelligence Unit
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Refund of Funds Under POCCA
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a refund of sums paid into RVD Markets Ltd account under POCCA Section 19
- 2 Whether the court can order refund before the Receiver evaluates claims as per consent judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The court is bound by the consent judgment, which mandates the Receiver to evaluate claims and report to the court before any refund can be ordered. The court cannot bypass this process or substitute itself for the Receiver.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for refund of funds is dismissed
- Applicants may institute action to compel appointment of Receiver if necessary
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment