Jersey's Royal Court says it has no doubt that an estimated US$287million held in a bank account in the Island was the proceeds of crime, and that the law does allow the money to be confiscated.
The judgement has been welcomed by the Island's Attorney General who has said that, "Jersey has once again demonstrated its commitment to tackling international financial crime and money laundering."
In its judgement, the court starts by outlining where the money came from: “It is alleged that during the military regime in Nigeria of General Sani Abacha, he and his son, Mohammed Sani Abacha, together with their associate Abubakar Atiku Bagadu (and others) embezzled, misappropriated, defrauded and extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from the government of Nigeria, which were then laundered through the US in breach of its money laundering laws.”
Some of that money was then put in an account in Deutsche Bank International in Jersey: the Doraville account. At the time other banks were cutting their ties with the Nigerian regime because of allegations of corruption, but the court says Deutsche Bank International was deceived.
The judgement continues: “When they approached Deutsche Bank International in Jersey… they produced false documents and made false representations as to the source of the money, namely that it was the proceeds of oil, construction and energy trading when, as the Verified Complaint says ‘in truth the funds were the proceeds of theft and corruption’.”
In May this year Nigeria’s new government took action to get the money in the Doraville account back. Lawyers acting for Doraville agreed the money should be handed over, but denied the money was the proceeds of crime, or as the law puts it “tainted property."
But, after complicated legal wrangling, the Royal Court has decided the money was “tainted property” and the original confiscation order should stand.
Who will actually get the confiscated money is still not clear. One of the reasons lawyers acting for the Doraville account say they went to court was because under the terms of the 2007 Law and Asset Sharing Agreement between the US and Jersey, it’s the US and Jersey who will get the money, not Nigeria.
The court, though, says “how these monies would be dealt with… is of no relevance, however, to the task which we have to decide and we comment no further upon it.”
The court concludes: "The application is accordingly dismissed and the property restraint order will remain in place.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.