UK BUSINESSMAN ‘CLEARS’ MP ROY OF MONEY LAUNDERING

MBABANE – The British businessman and Mftongwaneni MP Roy Fanourakis, have entreated the High Court to set aside the order authorising the State to continue freezing the bank accounts of a company where they are both shareholders.

The prosecution, through the Prevention of Organised Crimes Act (POCA) 2018 previously obtained an order to preserve a sum of E6.2 million belonging to the company,  Unionlet (Proprietary) Limited. The British businessman, Mark Ranger, who deposed to an affidavit, informed the court that the restraint order had severely prejudiced the company and its directors as well as Unionlet United Kingdom (UK), which relied on funds paid into the frozen accounts. He also jumped into the defence of the Member of Parliament (MP), saying the charge of money laundering against the legislator was allegedly not supported by any evidence. Fanourakis, who is facing a charge of money laundering, is currently out on bail. Ranger told the court that Unionlet UK had authorised Fanourakis to make automated teller machine (ATM) withdrawals to pay local expenses. According to Ranger, the MP had no day-to-day responsibilities in respect of the business as it was conducted in UK.

Suspected

The company is suspected of tax evasion and money laundering, as monies from outside the country would be allegedly deposited into its bank accounts and transferred to various individuals in different parts of the world. A large amount of money was paid to well-known arms manufactures and this raised concerns. This was also allegedly coupled with payments made to various service providers in the United Kingdom (UK). Strange payments were allegedly made to UK customs, as well as refunds from UK State Treasury. An analysis of cross-border transactions reflected that since 2013, the bank account of Unionlet (Proprietary) Limited, received E203 million through accounts held with First National Bank (FNB) Eswatini.

In his founding affidavit, Ranger argued that the restraint order was allegedly irregular, invalid and unconstitutional, in that they were allegedly not afforded an opportunity to be heard before same was granted. He told the court that this was despite that they were negatively affected by the order. “The director of public prosecutions (DPP) does not meet the requirements of Section 15 of POCA in that she was unable to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Unionlet Eswatini and Fanourakis will be convicted in the criminal proceedings and that a confiscation order will subsequently be granted against the property of Unionlet in the criminal proceedings,” contended Ranger.

Attention

The businessman  brought it to the attention of the court that since the granting on the order, he had been forced to deplete his personal savings in order to ensure that Unionlet UK and Unionlet Eswatini continued with their business and activities. He submitted that this approach was, however, not sustainable and in the absence of access to the funds in the bank accounts, the two entities could not continue to function much longer, which in the case of Unionlet UK, would imperil employment of at least 10 people. He argued that there was no indication at this stage as to precisely when the criminal proceedings would be finalised. He insisted that the charge of money laundering against MP Fanourakis was not supported by any evidence. The businessman told the court that he had been advised that money laundering entailed the processing of the proceeds of crimes and hiding its illicit origins.  It was his argument that in terms of Section 4(1) of the Money Laundering Act, the offence was committed where a person; converts or transfers property knowing or having reason to believe that the property is derived directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime.

It was his further submission that the criminal proceedings as well as the ex parte application were based on the funds held with First National Bank (FNB) and Nedbank accounts. He told the court that there was no evidence that was provided by the DPP to demonstrate that the funds had illicit origins. According to Ranger, the DPP had allegedly not attempted to explain, even a mere suspicion of the illicit activities from which the funds originated.

criminal

“In other words, it was necessary for the DPP to place before the court basis to show that the funds were the proceeds of criminal activity that constituted a crime in Eswatini,” argued Ranger.  He went on to argue that as such, a basic jurisdictional requirement to bring Fanourakis within the ambit of the crime of money laundering was conspicuously absent. He   pointed out that the high watermark of the DPP’s cases on this score was that an analysis of the FNB accounts  and Nedbank accounts revealed various ‘peculiar ‘ and ‘strange’ transactions. Ranger argued that, a mere opinion that transactions were ‘peculiar’ or ‘strange’ was not sufficient to sustain a money laundering charge and  fell short of identifying the illicit criminal activity either in violation of the penal laws of Eswatini or elsewhere. “These are no more than vague conclusions bereft of any legal meaning and the court ought to have refused the ex parte application on this basis alone given the paucity of material placed before it,” he argued. The matter is still pending in court and appearing for the British businessman, Fanourakis and the company is senior attorney Kenneth Motsa of Robinson Bertram.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: