Court approves application to further hold money laundering suspects |04 May 2023

The court is satisfied that the prima facie case in regards to the ongoing money laundering investigation has been established and the ground for further holding of the two suspects have been laid out, and accordingly, they will be remanded in police custody for a period of 14 days, before reappearing in court.

Justice Brassel Adeline made the statement yesterday while giving his ruling on an application by prosecution for further holding of the two suspects who have allegedly used their businesses to launder money from illicit activities, suspected to be drug trafficking.

A prima facie case is an early screen for a court to determine whether the prosecution can go forward to try the defendant fully for the crime.

As such, the standard of proof that the prosecution must satisfy at the prima facie case stage is lower than that for proof that the defendant is guilty.

In order to establish a prima facie case, a prosecutor need only offer credible evidence in support of each element of a crime. By contrast, a prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt as to each element beyond a reasonable doubt to win a conviction.

The two suspects – arrested and detained on the night of Wednesday April 26, leading to Thursday April 27, 2023 – are being investigated under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Terrorism Act 2020.

It was on August 25, 2022 that a report was made to the Financial Crime Investigation Unit within the Seychelles Police that as per intelligence gathered, the first suspect – a resident of Eden Island – was using his businesses to launder funds deriving from illicit deeds suspected to be drug trafficking, with the assistance of the second suspect who is a resident of Beau Vallon.

An investigation determined that the first suspect holds 29 business bank accounts with the Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB), of which he is the beneficial owner, comprising of Seychelles Rupees, US Dollars, and Pound Sterling.

Furthermore, the suspect has fifteen businesses registered in his name, out of which he failed to register seven with the Seychelles Revenue Commission (SRC).

In regards to personal vehicles, investigation revealed that in the preceding three months, 51 vehicles were  registered in his name, while to the date of submission of the application, only 45 were registered, and according to prosecution, this suggests that the first suspect has been disposing properties suspected to derive from criminal conduct, namely money laundering.

The amount of cash found in their possession, which was a substantial amount, could not be supported by documents although they claimed it was from their businesses.

The cash in several currencies were found in their possession and the prosecution said the two should be held further as the case was a complex one that needed more time to be investigated before the charges are filed.

Giving grounds for the application, the prosecution – Neesa Thompson and Brandon François – noted that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the evidence obtained may be further analysed for further potential offences, while, further evidences need to be obtained.

The application further states that the alleged offence committed, namely money laundering, is a serious and complex offence and if both suspects are at large, they may tamper with evidences at their premises, or dispose of the assets, while with cash in hands, they  may interfere with potential witnesses, tamper with evidence and disrupt the course of the investigation.

Through the application, the prosecution equally stated that it is believed the suspects are part of a larger organised group and if released, will tip-off others, and put them on alert, while money laundering being a serious and on the rise offence in the country,  if released, the suspects will have the opportunity to carry on with the activity.

In answer to the application for further holding, counsel for both suspects, Basil Hoareau, noted that such application interferes with the suspects’ right to liberty under Article eight (8) of the Constitution which the court should not take lightly, although the right to liberty is not an absolute right and that it is subject to limitations, or restrictions as is necessary in a democratic society, such as upon a lawful order of the court.

He submitted that the court’s approach when determining an application to remand a person in police custody which the instant application essentially seeks to do in the instance is to satisfy itself that the application, or affidavit, produces sufficient evidence upon which a court can make a finding that the prima facie case has been established, and that only then, that the court should consider the application.

The defence counsel further stated that application does not establish a prima facie, and on that basis alone, it should be dismissed, and the suspects set free.

He added that it is premature at this stage for the court to determine whether a prima facie case has been established and to substantiate his proposition that the affidavit does not establish a prima facie case the defence counsel remarked that the evidence affidavit to support the application are vague allegations which are not substantiated by statements of fact.

He cited, for example, the averment made in the affidavit that the first suspect has used his businesses to launder funds which have been obtained from illegal activities, namely drug trafficking, assisted by the second suspect.

The averment, he said, does not display any wrongdoing, or illegal act.

Commenting on the averment that the suspect failed to register seven out of his 15 businesses with the SRC, the defence counsel submitted that there is no obligation to register one’s business with the commission, unless, and until one commences business.

Regarding the averment that as per an analysis carried out so far, several transactions were identified for the purchasing of assets which raised suspicions to the source of funds, the defence counsel submitted that the court is not informed of what the analysis entails, and that the statement is vague, and this, he said, breaches the right of the suspect to fair hearing since he cannot respond properly, due to the absence of certain facts.

Commenting on the averment that the second suspect is the registered owner of two vehicles which he is suspected to have acquired from illegitimate source, given that he was not in a financial position to make such purchase, the defence counsel submitted that the affidavit evidence does not disclose any fact to substantiate the allegation.

He commented that the fact that the police need time to carry out further investigation at this crucial stage is not a ground to deny the two suspects their right to liberty.

Giving his ruling on the application, Justice Adeline partly agreed with the defence counsel that the affidavit in support of the application lacks in some respect certain facts, but however disagreed that it contains, in its entirety, vague statements.

He explained that he finds sufficient materials in the affidavit evidence, and is satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against the two suspects.

Justice Adeline further noted that he is persuaded by the submission of the state counsel that investigating the offence of money laundering is very complex, and due to its complexity, the reason needed to ensure that those being investigated, by whatever means do not hinder the investigation process.

Justice Adeline further added that he is equally persuaded that given the seriousness of the offence being investigated, and which carries a high penalty, there is a real possibility that the suspects will interfere with potential witnesses, tamper with evidence and disrupt the course of the investigation and possible outcome.

To conclude, Justice Adeline said in the final analysis, he is satisfied that a prima facie case for the further holding of the two suspects in police custody has been established and that the grounds for further holding have been laid out, and accordingly, the application succeeded.

Several other issues regarding the welfare of the suspects while in police custody were also brought up by the defence counsel, including food and the right to sunlight.

Based on the subject, Justice Adeline made it clear that the court does not interfere with the administrative side of suspects’ detention, but noted that there should be a consistency in the application of the protocol in place.

Roland Duval