Financial Intelligence Unit vs Battin and another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2012) [2013] SCSC 52 (6 May 2013)

Financial Intelligence Unit vs Battin and another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2012) [2013] SCSC 52 (6 May 2013)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the seized sum of US$12,160 found in the possession of the second respondent to the first respondent or to criminal conduct. The grounds for statutory belief did not establish the necessary connection required under POCA, and the circumstances of seizure did not demonstrate a failure to declare under the relevant law. Therefore, the application for an interlocutory order and appointment of a receiver was declined.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 52
Parties
Applicant: The Financial Intelligence Unit; First Respondent: Richard Battin; Second Respondent: Terrence Belle
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
6 May 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Interlocutory Ruling
Outcome
Application declined
Legal Topics
Civil Confiscation, Interlocutory Orders, Burden of Proof, Ex Parte Proceedings
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Civil Confiscation Interlocutory Orders Burden of Proof Ex Parte Proceedings

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

Parties

The Financial Intelligence Unit

Applicant

Richard Battin

First Respondent

Terrence Belle

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Interlocutory Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of US$12,160 seized from the second respondent constitutes benefit from criminal conduct under POCA
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence to link the seized money to the first respondent
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interlocutory order and appointment of a receiver under POCA are met

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the seized sum of US$12,160 found in the possession of the second respondent to the first respondent or to criminal conduct. The grounds for statutory belief did not establish the necessary connection required under POCA, and the circumstances of seizure did not demonstrate a failure to declare under the relevant law. Therefore, the application for an interlocutory order and appointment of a receiver was declined.

Court Disposition

Application declined