FIU v Onezime & Ano (MA 335/2016) [2017] SCSC 188 (1 March 2017)

FIU v Onezime & Ano (MA 335/2016) [2017] SCSC 188 (1 March 2017)

The Applicant provided reasonable grounds for belief that the Respondents' property is benefit from criminal conduct. The Respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the property is not proceeds of crime. The Respondents' affidavit was invalid and inadmissible. The requirements for an interlocutory order under section 4 of POCA were met.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 188
Parties
Applicant: The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU); Respondent: Andy Onezime; Respondent: Nasim Onezime
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Case Number
MA 335/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Order on Motion
Outcome
Interlocutory order granted in favour of Applicant
Legal Topics
Civil Confiscation, Burden of Proof, Interlocutory Orders, Asset Forfeiture
Source Language
English
Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Anti Money Laundering Civil Confiscation Burden of Proof Interlocutory Orders Asset Forfeiture

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)

Applicant

Andy Onezime

Respondent

Nasim Onezime

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Order on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are in possession or control of property constituting benefit from criminal conduct under POCA
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has provided reasonable grounds for belief as required by section 9(1) of POCA
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents have discharged the burden of proof to show the property is not proceeds of crime

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant provided reasonable grounds for belief that the Respondents' property is benefit from criminal conduct. The Respondents failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the property is not proceeds of crime. The Respondents' affidavit was invalid and inadmissible. The requirements for an interlocutory order under section 4 of POCA were met.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order granted in favour of Applicant

Orders

  • Interlocutory order prohibiting Respondents or any person with notice from disposing of or dealing with specified property as per section 4 POCA.
  • Appointment of Phillip Moustache, Director of FIU, as Receiver of the specified property to hold funds until further order.