More than 400 families and thousands of clients affected by the decision of ACCS to freeze companies’ accounts |23 December 2021

A group of companies whose accounts have been frozen by the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles (ACCS) in relation to the ongoing investigations of the alleged $50m court case, have rejected in the strongest possible terms the decision for the ACCS to freeze their accounts, thereby bringing to a halt all business operations related to these companies.

In a notice served to the companies last week, the Commissioner of the ACCS has given a directive to all the banks not to allow any financial transactions from these companies’ accounts. Although some restrictions have now been lifted, the daily operations of those companies remain challenging given the nature of these businesses.

The group of companies comprise Felicite Island Development Ltd, Intelvision Ltd,

Zil Pasyon resorts Ltd, Capital Trading Ptd Ltd, among others.

The group of companies have described ACCS’s decision to immediately freeze all the companies accounts as vexatious and malicious, given that the financial and economic repercussions are far and wide.

• Should this decision persist, clients who rely on such services will be negatively impacted by disruptions in services, including but not limited essential telecommunications services and supply of basic commodities;

• The decision will severely paralyze the operations of a 5-star hotel establishment, which is currently running at high capacity and contributing enormously towards the country’s economic recovery;

• Such decisions have the potential to scare away potential investors as ACCS’s directive can be interpreted as a forced and premature closure of otherwise healthy businesses providing essential services to the economy and population;

• These companies employ more than 400 workers, all of whom are concerned about the predicament that this has placed on their families. The ACCS has so far not provided any reason or evidence as to why these companies cannot be allowed to function other than it is part of the ongoing investigation. In our view, in spite of having such powers under Section 60(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2016, a directive to freeze the accounts of such a large group of companies require sufficient evidence.

The group of companies have taken the matter to the Supreme court as they say it is imperative that they are allowed to continue to function freely given the nature of their services.

Contributed