Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court at Musoma ordered forfeiture of a Honda CRV used in trafficking 32.2 kilograms of cannabis, finding it was tainted property under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
High Court partially granted a post-conviction forfeiture application, ordering selected Tanga properties and some vehicles forfeited while discharging others.
The High Court dismissed a DPP appeal over forfeiture of donkey products, holding that investment-related remedies had not been exhausted before criminal process.
The High Court of Tanzania ordered forfeiture of some properties after finding the respondent deemed convicted of money laundering following abscondment.
The High Court granted an ex parte forfeiture application, ordering property linked to an unlawfully obtained certificate of naturalization forfeited to the state.
The Economic Court lacked jurisdiction to enter a deemed conviction and proceed with asset forfeiture application without prior conviction; all proceedings and orders are nullified for want of jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
The High Court properly exercised its discretion under the Proceeds of Crime Act, meeting statutory preconditions for restraining and disposal orders, and did not err in considering restitution provisions or in applying orders to property of parties with interest but not charged.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred by not granting restraint orders on properties where evidence established they were instrumentalities of crime and the accused had sufficient interest. Ownership disputes and third party interests do not preclude restraint orders at this stage; such interests are addressed at forfeiture. Affidavit evidence and statutory definitions under POCA justified restraint orders.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that section 13A of the Proceeds of Crime Act did not extend to confiscation after acquittal and abated appeal, and dismissed the DPP's appeal.
The orders of the trial and first appellate courts directing refund of money to DECI (T) Ltd. members and involving the BOT were erroneous because they failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Proceeds of Crime Act for forfeiture and distribution of tainted property after pyramid scheme convictions. The 2012 amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, which made pyramid schemes predicate offences, applies retrospectively as a procedural law. The defence of innocent owner could only be properly considered through the PCA process, which was not followed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
