Financial Intelligence Unit v Allisop (144 of 2009) [2010] SCSC 100 (7 November 2010)

Financial Intelligence Unit v Allisop (144 of 2009) [2010] SCSC 100 (7 November 2010)

The applicant established on a balance of probability that the respondent was in possession of property constituting benefit from criminal conduct, given the unexplained wealth, lack of legitimate business, and manner of concealment. The respondent failed to rebut this case with credible evidence. All statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] SCSC 100
Parties
Applicant: The Financial Intelligence Unit; Respondent: Clive Lawry Allisop
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
7 November 2010
Case Number
144 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Civil Confiscation, Money Laundering, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Civil Confiscation Money Laundering Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

The Financial Intelligence Unit

Applicant

Clive Lawry Allisop

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for an interlocutory order under section 4 of POCCCA
  2. 2 Whether the property in question constitutes benefit from criminal conduct
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has rebutted the applicant's case

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established on a balance of probability that the respondent was in possession of property constituting benefit from criminal conduct, given the unexplained wealth, lack of legitimate business, and manner of concealment. The respondent failed to rebut this case with credible evidence. All statutory elements for an interlocutory order under section 4 of POCCCA were met.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The respondent or any person having notice is prohibited from disposing of or dealing with the property subject to the motion or diminishing its value.
  • Declan Barber, Director of FIU, is appointed Receiver of all the said property on specified terms.