MBABANE – Roy Fanourakis, through his company, is seeking an order to compel the DPP to release E680 000 of its frozen E6.5 million to fund their defence against tax evasion charges and money laundering.
Fanourakis is a one per cent shareholder in the aviation and aerospace company, Unionlet (Pty) Ltd. This company was established in Eswatini around 2012. It is petitioning the High Court for E680 000 to cover current and future legal costs. The funds were restrained in December 2022, under the provisions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) of 2018.
The application is against the director of public prosecutions (DPP), Detective Inspector Khumalo, cited as the appointed curator bonis, and the attorney general. The company’s Director, Roy, deposed to the founding affidavit. He is arguing that the freezing of all its bank accounts has left the company defenceless.
The matter began in January 2022 when Fanourakis, upon returning from a medical check-up in the Republic of South Africa, was arrested by members of the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) Fraud and Commercial Unit.
Following an interview concerning Unionlet’s business operations, Fanourakis said, he was formally charged for alleged contravention of the Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act and the Income Tax Order. The company, Unionlet, was included as a co-accused in the charge sheet. Fanourakis was subsequently released on E15 000 bail. He paid E5 000 to the Treasury Department and provided sureties for the value of the balance of E10 000.
However, the company was served with an ex-parte order – obtained without the company’s presence – issued by the High Court. This order directed that all funds in Unionlet’s bank accounts held with First National Bank of Eswatini Limited and Nedbank Eswatini Limited should be restrained.
The restraint was premised on allegations of money laundering and tax evasion and it was granted in terms of Section 16 of POCA.
Since the restraint order, which covers all the company’s bank accounts, according to Fanourakis, the matter has stalled. His affidavit states that the company has attempted to challenge the restraint order through civil proceedings and is also facing a criminal trial.
Fanourakis informed the court that both proceedings are at an advanced stage, with the civil matter ready for arguments and the criminal matter ready for trial.
However, he submitted that the company’s defence has collapsed because the briefed counsel has not been paid.
“Due to the fact that all the applicant’s bank accounts were restrained, it cannot access its funds for purposes of defending itself in both proceedings,” the director stated in the affidavit.
He lamented that the failure to access the funds has led to a costly delay in the finalisation of both the civil and criminal proceedings, including the allocation and subsequent failure of trial dates on two occasions.
The company’s application relies on Section 48 of POCA, which allows the High Court, upon application, to make provisions for payments from restrained property. This section specifically empowers the court to release funds for: Reasonable living expenses for the affected person and anyone they are liable to support and reasonable legal expenses for that person in connection with any proceedings instituted under that part of the Act.
Full article available in our publication.
Leave a comment