Government of Seychelles v Marie & Ors (MC 89/2020) [2023] SCSC 794 (14 July 2023)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable MC89/2020 In the matter between: THE GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES (Represented by Mrs. Nissa Thompson) Applicant: and LIZA MICHELLE MARIE (Represented by Mrs. Alexia Amesbury) NEDDY ROGER LAGRENADE (Represented by Mrs. Alexia Amesbury) JERRY BARRACK (Represented by Mr. Joel Camille) RANDY JEREMY HOAREAU (Unrepresented) 1st Respondent 2nd Respondent 3rd Respondent 4th Respondent Neutral Citation: Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: The Government of Seychelles v Marie & anal's (MC89/2020) Adeline j Application for lnterlocutory Order under Section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended. 71h& 8th July 2022 14th July 2023 (141h July 2023) FINAL ORDER [1] This application does have merits, and as a consequence thereof, I do make the following orders, I. 1 make an interlocutory order in accordance with Section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, prohibiting the Respondents or any other person having notice of the making of the order from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the whole or any part of the specified properties or dealing with or diminishing in the value of the specified properties as appended in the table annexed to this order. 2. I make an order pursuant to Section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, appointing Supt Hein Prinsloo as Receiver of all or part of the specified properties, to hold, to manage, to keep possession of or otherwise deal with any other property in respect ofwhich he is appointed in accordance with the Court's directions or until further order of this Court. 3. I order that the Respondents be notified of this order by service on them a copy of the same. 4. I make an order pursuant to Section I I (I) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civi I Confiscation) Act 2008 as amended, providing for notice of such order to be served on the Chief Executive Officer of the Seychelles Licensing Authority being a public officer who is required to keep and maintain public records relating to the vehicles in question, in this case, the vehicles as set out in the table appended to this order, not to effect any transfer or change of ownership with respect of these vehicles, and 5. I also make an order pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civi I Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, providing for notice of any such order to be served on the Registrar General in her capacity as the Land Registrar who is a public officer who is required to maintain public records relating to the specific properties, in this case the properties that are set out in the table appended to this order, not to effect any transfer or change of ownership with respect to the said property. ORDER ON MOTION Adeline j INTRODUCTION [2] This is an application, made by way of notice of motion supported by affidavit evidence with which are exhibited a number of documentary evidence, filed in Court by the Government of Seychelles ("the Applicant"), against one Liza Marie and Neddy Lagrenade jointly, both of Roche Caiman, Mahe, Seychelles and Jerry Barrack 01 Cascade, Mahe, Seychelles and Randy Hoareau of North East Point, Mahe, Seychelles ("the Respondents"), THE APPLICATION AND THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT [3] By this application, the Applicant applies to this Court for an Interlocutory Order under Section 4 of the Proceeds 01 Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended ("the POCCCA "), "prohibiting the Respondents or such other person as this Honourable Court shall order or any other person having notice of the making of this orderfrom disposing of or otherwise dealing with whole or any part of the property set out in the table to this notice ofmotion or diminishing its value", [4] In addition, the Applicant seeks for further orders in the following terms; (i) "An order pursuant to Section 8 of POCCCA" appointing Superintendent (Supt) Hein Prinsloo to be the receiver of all or part of the property, to manage, to keep possession of or otherwise deal with any other property in respect of which he is appointed in accordance with the Court's directions ". (ii) "An order providing for notice of any such orders to be given to the Respondents or any person directed by the Court ". (iii) "An order pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended, providing for notice of any such order to be served on the Chief Executive Officer of the Seychelles Licensing Authority (SLA) being a public officer who is required to maintain public records relating to the vehicles in question, in this case the vehicles as set out ;'1 the table appended to this Notice of Motion, not to effect any transfer or change of ownership with respect to the said vehicle, " (iv) "A further order pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008 as amended, providing for notice of any such order to be served on the Registrar General in her Capacity as the Land Registrar who is a public officer who is required to maintain public records relating to the specified property, in this case the Property set out in the table appended to this Notice of Motion, not to effect any transfer or change of ownership with respect to the said property", and (v) "Suchfurther or other order as the Court shall deemjust and proper ". 1.5] The Applicant's application by which it seeks for these orders is grounded on the beliefs of Supt Hein Prinsloo by virtue of Section 9( I) of POCCCA that emanate from his sworn affidavit in support of the application dated 16th October 2020, as well as his oral testimony of the 7th and 8th July 2022. Supt Hein Prinsloo's beliefs are that; "a. The Respondents are in possession or control of specified property, that is to say, the property set out in his affidavit and in the Annexure to this Notice of Motion and that the specified property constitutes directly or in directly benefit from criminal conduct or b. the Respondents are in possession or control of the said specified property, and that is to say the said property mentioned in his affidavit and in the Annexure attached to his Notice of Motion and that the specified property was acquired in whole or in part with or in connection with property that directly or indirectly constitutes the benefit from criminal conduct c. the total value of the specified property mentioned in (a) and (b) above is not less than SCR 50,000.00" SUPERINTENDENT HEIN PRINSLOO'S BELIEFS AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICA nON [6] The Applicant's case for the orders being sought for is borne out of the affidavit evidence and the oral evidence of Supt Hein Prinsloo, a former Superintendent of Police in the Financial Crime Investigation Unit which I therefore summarise as follows; (i) On the 20t'h August 2020, the Ist Respondent Lisa, Michelle, Marie who is well known to the FCrU and the ANB, whom the FCrU on the request of the ANB had started a financial profiling of her, returned to Seychelles on board Emirates Flight EK70S from Dubai. She had completed the disembarkation form in which she had indicated that she has not brought into Seychelles cash of the value in excess of USD J 0,000 exhibit (Hp2). At the Airport, Lisa Marie was interviewed by customs officer and asked whether she had travelled alone. Her answer to the officer was that she had travelled alone. (i) That information was proved to be incorrect as further investigation shows, that she did travel with two other ladies by the name of Sheerna, Kara Moustache and Hilary Ashley Carol Sopha who work for Lisa. As per the continuing investigation into Liza's affairs, it was discovered, that Liza had paid Ocean Air Travel Agent airfares to travel to South Africa in March 2020 which she did not because of the Covid -19 air travel restrictions. Lisa obtained from Ocean Air travel credits which she made use of for the three of them Sheerna, Hilary and herself to travel to Dubai. [7] In her interview on her arrival from Dubai on that particular day, Lisa stated, that she went to Dubai for a hairdresser and nail course which cost her 2500 Dirhams. She was however unable to provide proof of payment of the 2500 Dirhams, contending, that she did not complete the course. In his deposition, Supt Prinsloo avers, that he believes, that payment for such short course ought to have been made upfront, It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that a search in Liza's handbag led to the discovery of euro 9390.00 in her possession which she said she bought from Barclays Bank (now Absa Bank) and that she had proof of the same. [8] Documents obtained from the Absa Bank (formerly the Barclays bank) shows, that Liza had a rupee account in the name of her trading name "Liza Boutique" bearing account NO Supt avers, that based on the findings of the FCIU, Liza did not purchase foreign exchange at the Absa Bank, and had no documentary proof to substantiate her claim. [9] lt is the averment of Supt Prinsloo, that Liza also said, that she had no knowledge of the fact, that she had to declare funds that were in her possession upon her re-entry in the country, and that she could not be believed given that she is a frequent traveller who travels 15 times in 20 J 8, 18times in 2019, and 3 times before the Covid - 19 pandemic restrictions (exhibit HP3). [10] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Liza was interviewed by FCIU Officers on the 20th August 2020 at a time when she was at the quarantine facility at Berjaya Beau- Vallon Bay. She gave a different version of why she travelled to Dubai with two ladies who work for her in her hairdressing salon, "La Diva Salon". Her new version was for her to obtain extra kilos and that she went there to buy clothes to furnish her clothing business shop, named "Set up". It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Liza's version to FCIU Officers contradicted what she had told Custom officers upon her arrival into Seychelles on the 20th August 2022. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in respect of the euro 9390.00 she had in her possession upon her re-entry into Seychelles, Liza came up with a different excuse. She told FCIU Officers that she did not declare them because she thought that the euro 9390.00 was less that USD 10,000. [11] It is the averment of Supt Prinsloo, that Liza made several contradictions in answer to questions put to her by FCI U Officers, and that based on his experience as a financial investigator and analyst, this type of trait is common especially when one's intention is to conceal the origin of cash for example. The cash in euros that was in Liza's possession was seized and never returned to her because she could not provide documents to prove their source although the FCIU did receive some documents from Counsel then, Mr. Nichol Gabriel, all of which were irrelevant for the purposes of proving the source of the fund. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that by way of a telephone call made by Liza on the 2nd September 2020 to the FClU, she sought to enquire about the money, stating, that she needed the same to pay her workers and her loan, which money, this time round she said she exchanged cash rupees for foreign exchange at Cash Plus, JPL and Mahe Exchange Bureau des Changes, although she provided no documents in support of her claim. As per the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, this was a new version contrary to what she had said previously. It is averred by CPL Prinsloo, that even if the FC]U was to bel ieve that the money seized was meant to buy clothes for her shop, it could not, therefore, have been part of the budget for salaries or even loan repayments. [12] Supt Prinsloo avers, that following the seizure of the euro 9390.00, a Section 3 and 8 order under POCCCA was sought for which order was made on the 17th September 2020, and he was appointed receiver to the specified property subject to such order. [13] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the FeIU's investigation led them to the Registrar of Companies and the Seychelles Revenue Commission where they discovered that Liza Marie and her partner Neddy, Roger Lagrenade (the 2nd Respondent) own businesses jointly and that those businesses are Liza Boutique, Mad Boutique, Neddy's Cleaning and Maintenance and Zoli Boutik. Only Liza Boutique was registered with SRC and that the last tax return was way back in 2018. These registered businesses were not registered with the Pension Fund. It is the averment of Supt Prinsloo, that although Liza had mentioned the names of two other businesses, "La Diva and Step Up", none of these two businesses is registered on her name or the name of the 2nd Respondent. [14] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that this adds to his belief, that Liza Marie, the I st Respondent and her partner Neddy Lagrenade, the 2nd Respondent, are involved in concealment activities amid the existing intelligence that they are involved in drugs trafficking and money laundering. Supt Prinsloo avers, that the records obtained from customs show, that there were never any imports on the name of Diva or Step Up although she had initially said that she had travelled to Dubai to purchase items for Step Up. [15] It is the averment of Supt Prinsloo, that the FC[U working in close collaboration with the ANB received several WhatsApp conversations between Liza and Bunsen Travel, from which conversation, Liza confirmed, that the 2nd Respondent, Neddy is her husband. It's per the averment of Supt Prinsloo, this clears (oo oo.) Neddy's boat was followed by ANB and stopped. In a statement given to the ANB by Neddy he mentioned one Patrick Laporte who apparently works for him on his boat and was present on the boat when stopped. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Patrick is not registered with SRC. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that, Neddy remains a key role player in the affairs of the late Dereck Porice against whom several Court applications were brought by the FCIU. [16] Supt Prinsloo avers, that the FCIU also probed into the bank accounts of Patrick Laporte, Liza and Neddy. As per his evidence, Patrick Laporte had a bank account No held at the Mauritius Commercial bank and that since 2018, this bank account has been inactive. As at July 2020, the balance was SCR 90.53. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Neddy, the 2nd Respondent, doesn't hold any bank account in this country. Liza holds a business account at the Absa Bank under the business name of Liza Boutique, number and a personal account at Nouvobanq number The evidence of Supt Prinsloo shows, that in January 2018 there was no transaction in the account held at Novobanq. In February 2018 there was a cash deposit of SCR 15,000, in November 2018 a cash deposit of SCR 26,400.00 into the account. These were the only two transactions made during the whole year of 2018 as regards to this bank account. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in the year 2019, as early as the 12 January 2019, the sum of SCR 26,935.3 was exchanged for foreign currencies. The transaction that followed was on the 6th June 2019 when the sum of SCR 200,000 was credited into Liza's account from the account of one lannick Myriarn Pool. As per Supt Prinsloo's evidence the SCR 200,000 were proceeds of sale of a motor vehicle make Honda Vezel, S6172, which as per the documents received from the Seychelles Licensing Authority (exhibit HP7) was registered on Liza's sister one Sandra Marisa, Eva Marie. As per Supt Prinsloos testimony, if Sandra Marie was the rightful owner of the said vehicle, the proceeds of sale of such vehicle should have been credited into her accounts at the Mauritius Commercial Bank or at the Credit Union. Supt Prinsloo believes, that the beneficial owner of the vehicle was Liza Marie, the 1SI Respondent and that her sister, Sandra, was just fronting which is a common trait of people who seeks to defy the system by concealing the true ownership of property. [17] Supt Prinsloo deponed, that in June 2019, SCR 35,000 was withdrawn from Liza's account at Nouvobanq, SCR 28,147.00 was transferred to Bunson Travel as well as a card transaction of SCR 3,855.14 at GSC. It was the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that in July 2019, a cash deposit of SCR 70,000 was made in Liza's account at Nouvobanq, and that following the FCIU's analysis 01 the accounts, it was found that a total amount of SCR 187,096.00 was debited from the account through card purchases and withdrawals effected in Dubai and Seychelles. As per Supt Prinsloo's testimony, from August 2019 to November 2019, there were few debit card transactions the largest of which was SCR 11,445.00 in November 2019. [18] It was the testimony of Supt Prinsloo, that on the 11th December 2019, the sum of SCR 450,000.00 was transferred into Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq, purportedly, to be proceeds of sale of vehicle S26794 which was then registered in the name ofNeddy the 2nd Respondent, sold to one Steven Kelvin Tirant. The following day, the 12thDecember 20 19, SCR 450,000 was transferred from Liza's account to one Zoltan Sugar account for the sale and purchase ofa Toyota Rivo S31189 which was registered in the name ofNeddy, the 2nd Respondent (exhibit HP9). As per Supt Prinsloo's evidence, in the month of December 2019, there were other transactions in Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq. There was a deposit of SCR 35,000, a transfer from the account of SCR 50,000 meant to be for Sandra Marie's Medical expenses and SCR 62,523 debit card purchases. [19] In January 2020, no credit was made into Liza's Nouvobanq account. There was a debit recorded as debit card purchase as well as a withdrawal in the total sum ofSCR 22,581.24, and in February 2020, a cash deposit of SCR 36,000 and a total debit of SCR 17,981.00. It was the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that on the 16thMarch 2020, two transfers of large sum of money were made into Liza's bank account totalling the sum of SCR 250,000, meant to be for the "purchase of a shop" for the sum SCR 250,000, SCR 100,000.00 was from SEM Enterprise, and SCR 150,000.00 was from one Marc, Georges, Woodcock, a person known to the ANB and FCIU to be involved in drugs related activities. In March 2020, there was also a debit of SCR 57, 287.00 from Liza's account for debit card purchases. It was deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that in May 2020, a total of seven cash deposits totalling SCR 235,600.00 were made in Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq and debits in the total amount of SCR 152, 748.00 as debit card transactions and withdrawals. [20] Supt Prinsloo also deponed, that in June 2020, two cash deposits were made in Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq total Iing SCR 80,000. A transfer in the sum of SCR 195,000 was credited into Liza's account by one Michael S A Judith meant to be for the purchase of a boat. On the 22nd June 2020, the SCR 195,000.00 was transferred to Liza's sister, Diane Laporte, meant to be for "helping cousin medical issue and renovation of Grandparent house". As per Supt Prinsloo's testimony, the total credit into Liza's Nouvobanq account for the month of June 2020 was SCR 275,000.00. The total debits from the account was SCR 463,150.00 made by way of debit card transactions, cash withdrawals and outward fund transfers. [21] It was the testimony of Supt Prinsloo, that the transactions that took place in respect of Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq as of July 2020, was a debit of SCR 75,19.00 as debit card purchases and withdrawals. On the 3rd of August 2020, the sum of SCR 7,000.00 was credited into the account as a cash deposit, and on the 4thAugust 2020, the sum of SCR 130,000.00 was transferred into the account by one Labaleine, Antoine Neville for "the purchase of vehicle" S3253 which was registered in the name of Sandra, Marisa, Eva, Marie and transferred on to Ashley J S Labaleine and Antoine N Labaleine on the 4til of August 2020. Given that the vehicle S3253 was registered in Sandra's name (exhibit HP 10) and the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle credited into Liza's bank account, it is the belief of Supt Prinsloo, that both, "Liza and Sandra Marie were and have been actively concealing the true ownership of the vehicles". It was deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that the debit from the account for the month of August 2020 was SCR 135,030, made as debit card purchases mostly carried out in Dubai, and for online shopping. [22] Supt Prinsloo testified, that the FCIU did analyse the transactions in respect of bank account No in the business name of Liza Boutique of which Liza is the sole signature (exhibit HPJl). His testimony, was that in March 2018, there were five cash deposits adding up to SCR 61,560.00 and debits in the total sum of SCR 6,975.00 as debit card purchases, in Apri120J8, 19 cash deposits totalling SCR 61,300.00 and debits in the slim of SCR 24,714.00 by way of debit card purchases, cheque and cash withdrawals. In May 2018, there were cash deposits in the total sum ofSCR 21,375.00, debits in the total sum ofSCR 33,737.00, in June 20 J 8, cash deposits in the total sum orSCR 9,000.00, debits in the total sum of SCR 63, J 27.00 as cheque withdrawals and purchases offorex. In July 2018, cash deposits in the total sum of SCR 35,000.00 and debits in the total sum of SCR 10,800.00 as cheque withdrawals. [23] It was the testimony ofSupt Prinsloo, that in August 2018, a cash deposit ofSCR 16,500 was credited into the account and there was only a debit of SCR J 00.00. It was also the testimony of Supt Prinsloo, that in September 2018, there were two cash deposits made into the account totalling SCR 20,000.00. There was a transaction where Euro to equivalent to SCR 62,545.00 were sold by Liza, and a transaction where USD equivalent to SCR49,987.00 was purchased by Liza. In September 2018, there were debits adding up to SCR 55, 483.00 recorded as cheque withdrawals and forex purchases. In October 20i8, two cash deposits were made into the account in the total sum of SCR 33,900.00 and debits in the total amount of SCR 104,000.00 mainly as cash withdrawals. It was deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that in November 2018, one cash deposit was made into the account in the sum of SCR28,000.00 and a debit of SCR 26,480.00 as cheque withdrawal, including a debit of SCR 100.00 as subscription. According to Supt Prinsloo's testimony, for the month of December 2018, there were three cash deposits into the account in the total sum ofSCR 42,425.00 and a debit ofSCR 100 as subscription. It was the finding of the FCIU, that in 2018, the account received a total ofSCR 329,060.00 on the presumptive tax return and that no income was declared. [24] As per Supt Prinsloo's deposition, their analysis of the account for the year 2019 reveals that a sum of SCR 26,935.32 was exchanged for foreign currencies on the 12thJanuary 20 I9, and that there was no deposit into the account for that month. Furthermore, no transactions were made in the months of February 2019 - May 2019 in respect of such account, that is, the Nouvobanq account No An amount of SCR 200,000 was transferred from the account of one Janick Myriam Pool into the account on the 6th June 2019, which as per the document received from the Seychelles Licensing Authority, was proceeds of sale of a motor vehicle make Honda Vezel bearing registration No S6172 which was registered in the name of Sandra, Marisa, Eva, Marie (the sister of Liza, the l " Respondent) sold to the said Janick Pool, exhibit HP7. [25] It is the testimony of Supt Prinsloo, that the said Sandra holds two bank accounts. One at the Mauritius Commercial Bank, account No. and one at the Seychelles Credit Union, account No. Supt Prinsloo believes, that if Sandra was the real owner of the vehicle sold, the proceeds of sale should have been credited into her account not in Liza's account. As such, it is the belief of Supt Prinsloo, that Liza was the ultimate owner of the said vehicle, and that Sandra was fronting for her sister, and this is a common trait of people who defies the system and conceal true ownership, of property. [26] It is also deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that in respect of Liza's Nouvobanq account, that in the month of June 2019, there was a withdrawal of SCR 35,000.00 plus a transfer in the sum of SCR 28,147.00 to Bunson Travel as well as a card transaction to the amount of SCR 3,855.14 at GSc. It is further deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that in July 2019, there was a cash deposit into the account in the sum of SCR 70,000.00 plus a total debit SCR 187,096.00 as card purchases and withdrawals which were effected in Dubai and Seychelles. In August 2019, there was one debit card transaction in the sum ofSCR 175.00, in September 2019 a debit of SCR 3,417.00 by way of card purchases, in October 2019 a debit card transaction in the sum of SCR D3.00, and in November 2019, two debit card transactions in the total sum of SCR 11,445.00. {27] lt is further deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that on the 11l'hDecember 2019, the sum ofSCR 450,000.00 was transferred into the account by one reference Steven Tirant for the purchase of a vehicle registered as S26794 in the name of Neddy Lagrenade, the 2nd Respondent, exhibit HP8. The following day, the 12thDecember 2019, the sum of SCR 450,000 was transferred from the account to the account of one Zoltan Sugar for the purchase of a Toyota Revo registered in the name ofNeddy Lagrenade, the 2nd Respondent, exhibit HP9. 1n the month of December 2019, a SUIll of SCR 35,000.00 cash was deposited into the said bank account, and a transfer in the sum of SCR50,000 was made into the account with the reference Sandra, Marie Medical Expenses. There was also a debit in the total sum orSCR 62,523 hom the account for card purchases and withdrawals. [28] As regards to the Nouvobanq Bank account No for the year 2020, Supt Prinsloo avers, that in January there was only one transaction, and that was a debit totalling the sum of SCR 22,581.24 as card purchases and withdrawals. In February 2020, there was a cash deposit of SCR 36, 000.00 and debits in the total sum of SCR 17,981.00. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that on the 16th March 2020, the accounts received two transfers in the total sum ofSCR 250,000.00 for the purchase of shop. Of the two transfers, one was in the total sum of SCR 150,000 from one George Woodcock, someone well known to the ANB as involving in drugs related activities. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that there were debits from the account in the total sum of SCR 57,287 for card purchases. [29] Supt Prinsloo avers, that in April 2020, the only transactions that took place in the account were debits in the total sum of SCR 29,546.00 which was card purchases. In May 2020, there were seven cash deposits in the total sum of SCR 235,000.00 into the account, and debits in the total sum of SCR 152,748.00 which were card purchases transactions as well as withdrawals. Supt Prinsloo also avers, that in June 2020, there were two cash deposits in the total sum of SCR 80,000.00 plus a transfer into the account of the sum of SCR 195,000.00 by one Micheal S A Judith for the purchase of a boat. The sum of 195,000.00 was then transferred to the account of Diane Laporte on the 22nd June 2020 for allegedly "helping cousin medical issue and renovation of grand-parent house". Hence, as per Supt Prinsloo's deposition, in the month of June 2020, the account received a total credit ofSCR 275,000.00 and a total debits of SCR 463,150.00. The debits were card transactions, cash withdrawals and fund transfers. [30] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in the month of July 2020, the account received no credits. There were debits in the total sum SCR 75,19.00 which were card purchases and withdrawals. For the month of August 2020, as per Supt Prinsloo's deposition, there was a cash deposit of SCR 7,000.00 and a transfer into the account on the 4th August 2020 in the total sum of SCR 130,000.00 effected by one Mr. Labaleine, Antoine, Neville for the purchase of vehicle. As per the record obtained from the Seychelles Licensing Authority, 1110torvehicle registered in the name of Sandra, was transferred to one Ashley SS Labaleine and Antoine N Labaleine on the 4th August 2020, exhibit HP IO. It is observed by Supt Prinsloo, that again the vehicle sold was registered in the name of Sandra and the sale and purchase money ended up in Liza's bank account at Nouvobanq. Based on these transactions it is Supt Prinsloo's belief, that Liza (the l " Respondent) and Sandra "were and have been actively concealing the true ownership of the vehicles. Supt Prinsloo avers, that a total sum of SCR 135,030.00 was debited from the account recorded as card purchases as well as withdrawals. Supt Prinsloo noted, that there was no transfer of the 130,000.00 into Sandra's bank account for the sale and purchase of motor vehicle S3253. [31] As regards to Liza's (the l " Respondent), bank account at the Absa Bank, account No in the name of Liz a Boutique, opened on the 1yh March 2018, exhibit HP 11, Supt Prinsloo avers, that in March 2018, the account received five cash deposits adding up to a total sum of SCR 61,560. The total debits from the account were SCR 6,975.00 as card purchases. [32] It is a averred by Supt Prinsloo, that for the year 2019 beginning from January 2019, the I" Respondent's Absa Bank account, No received no cash deposits nor any credits. There were debits in the total sum of SCR 25,100.00 which were cheque withdrawals. The account did not receive any cash deposits or other credits for the months of February and March 2019. In February 2019, there were debits in the total sum ofSCR 35,400.00 as cash withdrawals and subscription, and in March 2019, there was a debit of SCR 100.00 recorded as subscription. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in the month of April 2019, four cash deposits in the total sum of SCR 49,775.00 were made into the account, and there was a debit of SCR 100.00 recorded and subscription, and that in May 2019 the account received no deposits or other credits. There was, however, or debit of SCR 100.00 recorded as subscription. [33] Supt Prinsloo deponed, that in June 2019, the account received four cash deposits in the total SUIll of SCR 61,47S.00. The total debits were in the sum of 84,190.00 which were recorded as withdrawals and outgoing transfers. In July 2019, there were seven cash deposits into the account in the total sum of SCR 49,800.00 and a total debits of SCR 73,SSO.00 recorded as withdrawals and outgoing transfers. Supt Prinsloo also deponed, that in the month of August 2019, the account received no cash deposits. A loan of SCR 80,000.00 referenced "Absa loan account No 2036263" was credited into the account on the 23rd August 2019. A total sum orSCR 9,S07.00 were debited from the accounts as card transactions, withdrawals and lending. [34] Supt Prinsloo also deponed, that on the 3rd of September 2019, the sum of SCR 79,000.00 was withdrawn for the said bank account and that the account has since went in arrears without any credits made. As per Supt Prinsloo's affidavit evidence, for the year 2019, the Absa Bank business account No owned by the 1st Respondent, Liza Marie, received a total sum of SCR 161,770.00 as credits, and yet no tax returns were filed for the year 2019. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that up to the yh of March 2020, the account was still in arrears, and that on the 6th of March 2020 a cash deposit of SCR 10,000.00 was made into the account. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that when the information was obtained in July 2020, the account was in debit in the sum of SCR 243.86. [35] As per Supt Prinsloo's affidavit evidence, the FCIU did conduct an analysis of the transactions of Liza Marie, (the 1st Respondent) and Patrick at the Bureau de Change. The findings of the analysis show that in the year 2019, Liza conducted ten foreign exchange transactions in the total sum of SCR 926,870.00 and in the year 2020 the transactions were in the total sum ofSCR 415,660.1 S. As regards to Patrick's transactions, he did six foreign exchange transactions in the total sum of SCR 571,529.00 in 2019, and six transactions in the total sum of SCR 510,268.00 in the year 2020 at different money exchanges. It is the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that the foreign exchange transactions by Liza and Patrick for the year 2019 added up to SCR 1,498,399.00, and that there were no declaration to that effect to the SRC, and the same are not reflected in their bank account. For the year 2020, from January to September, 2020, Liza and Patrick exchanged a total sum of SCR 925,928.15, exhibit I-IP 12. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that no presumptive tax returns or business tax returns were lodged by neither Liza Boutique, Liza, Neddy or Patrick. [36] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo that on the 27(h January 2019, Liza purchased USD 8,420 equivalent to SCR 119,985.00, and that on the 41h February 2019, she purchased USD 20,000 equivalent to SCR 285,000.00, both purchases from Cash Plus Exchange. The money used to purchase the foreign exchange did not come from her Absa Bank account No held in her business name of Liza Boutique, nor from the Nouvobanq Bank account No held in her name. S upt Pri nsloo also avers, that as per Liza' s travel records, she travelled to Sri Lanka on the 28th January 2019 and returned to Seychelles on the 2nd February 2019. She also travelled to South Africa on the 61hFebruary 20 t 9, and returned to Seychelles on the 91hFebruary 2019. [37] It is further averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Liza did undertake some foreign exchange transactions at JPL Exchange in the year 2019. On the 13th September 2019, she purchased Euro 6,835 equivalent to SCR 206,863.00 and USD 7,000 equivalent to SCR 100,00.00. Supt Prinsloo avers, that the money used to buy the Euros and USO's did not come from the Absa Bank Account No held in the name of Liza Boutique, nor from the Nouvobanq Bank account, No held in the name of Liza. On the same day that these foreign exchange transactions were undertaken, Liza travelled to Dubai and returned to Seychelles on the 16th September 2019. [38] Supt Prinsloo averred, that on the 3 pI December 2019, Patrick purchased USD 25,000 equivalent to SCR 357,400.00 from Cash Plus Exchange and 011 the 6th January 2020, he purchased USO 3,000.00 equivalent to SCR 42,840.00, and a further USD 20,000 equivalent to SCR 286,000.00 all from Cash Plus Exchange. As per Supt Prinsloo's deposition, in 8 days Patrick purchased a total of USD 48,000 equivalent to SCR 686,240.00 whilst declaring no income and his personal MCB Bank account No having been inactive since March 2018. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that following a search carried out at the residence of Liza Marie and Neddy Lagrenade, (the 1s( and 2nd Respondents), the driving license of Patrick Laporte was seen. Supt Prinsloo avers, that it is common here in Seychelles for one to use his or her driving license as a means of identification, and that Patrick Laporte's identification document was being used by Liza to carry out her transactions, and Patrick Laporte was very much aware of her transactions. [39] Supt Prinsloo deponed, than the FCIU also probed into Liza Marie's imports by analysing the import documentation received from Customs Division of the SRC, exhibit HP14. As per Supt Prinsloo's testimony, the FCIU came to k.now that Zoli Boutik is owned by one Sheryln Niella Furneau having TIN number that no record existed in respect of MAD Boutique, and that there were only eight bill of entries made in the name of Liz a for the year 2019, exhibit HP 134. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that based on the documentations, on the 23rd January 2019, Liza imported from Thailand, commodities to the value of SCR 9,492.70. On the l S'" February 2019, commodities to the value of SCR 1,716.42 from South Africa, on the 25th April 2019 commodities from Italy to the value of SCR 20,116, on the 19th August 2019 commodities to the value of SCR 95,943 from Thailand and on the 25th November 2019 commodities to the value ofSCR 20,275.00 from South Africa. [40] Supt Prinsloo averred, that for the year 2019, the value of Liza's total imports was 176,409.00. As per his deposition, a profit of J 00 percent's would mean that the total income from imports would have added up to SCR 352,8 I8.00 Supt Prinsloo also averred, that Liza did not Lodge any presumptive tax return in the year 2019 for Liza Boutique and that based on his analysis, the amount of money exchange at the money changers for foreign currencies far exceeded her profit margin. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that on the 1st September 2020, Zoli Boutik (owned by Sherlyn Fumeau) imported from "Shein UK", China commodities to the value of SCR 5,584. A payment of SCR 5,651.00 was made by Liza from her personal bank account held at Nouvobanq to shein.corn London on the 131h August 2020, exhibit HP 15. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that it is not a business "best practice" to pay for goods from a personal account instead of a business account. [41] In his deposition, Supt Prinsloo did acknowledge, that the P! Respondent, Liza Marie through her Lawyer then, produced some documents, particularly, a copy of her bank statement and entries from a "business book". He averred, that as per the FCIU's findings, some of the regular expenses for the month were not recorded. Supt Prinsloo averred, that in June 2020, the rental was SCR 7,500.00 and only half of one salary was recorded. For the month of July 2020, rent was SCR 15,000.00, salary for Ginie SCR 7,800.00, salary for Debbie was SCR 7,800.00 and salary for . Jane was SCR 8800.00. Jt is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that for the month of August, 2020, only Jane received payment in the form of an allowance of SCR 1500.00. As per Supt Prinsloo's averments, the expense for electricity for July 2020 was SCR 2,715.00 and on the August 2020 expenses list, the electricity for June and July was SCR 6,200.00. Supt Prinsloo averred, that there was a record for "hair piece" expenses for the month of June 2020 in the sum of SCR 45,000.00 but no such record for the months of July and August 2020. It was the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that the FCIU's conclusion based on their findings, was that, the documents produced were forged. [42] Supt Prinsloo deponed, that the FCTU came to this conclusion, given that it took the l" Respondent, Liza Marie, II days to produce those documents which if they were readily available, they would have been produced much earlier. It is also deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that the documents submitted by the 1st Respondent in trying to prove the legitimate sources of the euros found in her possession, the business "Serenity" is mentioned when such a business is not even registered in the name of the I st Respondent. [43] Supt Prinsloo averred, that during the interviews with the FCI. U, the l " Respondent, Liza Marie stated, that she owes two shops, one named La Diva and the other Step Up. Yet the FCIU found that La Diva was registered with SRC on the 17thJune 2020 in the name of one Zaynab Ghistain trading as La Diva Hairdressing Salon. As regards to Step Up Boutique, it is registered with SRC under the name of Mervin Louise. Supt Prinsloo also averred, that according to the record, Step Up Boutique is registered in the name of Sandra who is the ISI Respondent's sister, whereas, as per the record of the SLA, Step Up Boutique is registered in the name of one Natasia Louise, exhibit HPI6. l44J It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that as per the record obtained from customs, all imports were done under the name of "Liz a Boutique" and that Jed the FCIU to the conclusion, that these companies were being used as front companies to cover up the Ist Respondent's criminal activities. To that end, it is the belief of Supt Prinsloo, that front companies are often used to hide the origin of the money that is derived from illicit activities, and in this case, he believes, that such activities are drugs related. Supt Prinsloo also believes, that those front companies are used to facilitate money-laundering schemes. [45] Supt Prinsloo deponed, that on the 12th June 2020, the l" Respondent did use Begitta, Cheryl Legaie who was the previous owner of La Diva as a front when she transferred the sum SCR 100,000.00 from her personal bank account held at Nouvobanq to Ms. Legaie's MCB's bank account No under the disguise of "funds for medical expenses". Supt Prinsloo also deponed, that this is proof that the l " Respondent purchased or funded La Diva and then concealed the beneficial ownership by registering it on the name ofYasmin who is married to Liza's half-brother. Supt Prinsloo avers, that it is his belief that these manoeuvres were intended to evade tax, and for the 1st and 2nd Respondents not to be directly affiliated with companies although hers and/or theirs, for known drug dealer's mode of operation. [46] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the transaction involving the Honda Vezel which Sandra sold to Yanick pool for SCR 200,000.00 on the 6th June 2019 is further proof of the use of a person by the 1st Respondent to front for her, and that was clearly the case given that the sale proceeds did not end up into Sandra's bank account but in Liza's Nouvobanq bank account instead. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that during the interview of the 20th August 2020, and from the documents produced to the FCIU by Liza herself, that she admitted to be the beneficial owner of La Diva and Step Up, although the registration record at SRC, ROC, and SLA shows otherwise. It is the bel ief of Supt Prinsloo, therefore, that both, the 15t and 2nd Respondents (Liza and Neddy) use front companies and other people like Patrick Laporte, and Sandra Marie, for example, to conceal the true nature of their illicit acti vities. l47] In his deposition, Supt Prinsloo stated, that the FCIU did conduct an analysis of the l" Respondent's (Liza's) cell phone records, and that they came across several phone numbers known to them as well as to the ANB, as phone numbers of several suspects of drugs importation and drugs trafficking. These phone numbers included contacts based in Iran, South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique and Madagascar, which Seychelles rates as "high risk countries". These phone numbers contact were saved using codes as airport friend, blocky, lookout, Iran Boat, Iran Boat 2, Iranian 2, and Iranian 3. Supt Prinsloo also stated, that the phone number of Iranian boats in Iranians found on the phone extractions of Liza's phone is highly suspicious, and to save a person's phone number as "airport friend" concealing the persons true identity is also suspicious. Supt Prinsloo believes, that only persons involved in drugs related activities would save someone's name as blocky a term commonly used by persons involving in drugs related activities. [48] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the l " Respondent, Liza Marie, had saved the number + 24825444839 under the name of "Uzor Nigerian", someone well known to the ANB, who together with two other accomplices were arrested on the 23rd October 2018 during a controlled delivery operation held by ANB, after Uzor had attempted to collect drugs from one Christine Kabunde from Zambia. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the 15\ Respondent, Liza Marie, had phone number +261325643997 saved on her cell phone as "Annta", As per Supt Prinsloos averment, that phone number was the first phone number dialed on the satellite phone when Charita arrived at Cosrnoledo island on the 21st November 2012, as transpired in evidence in the case of Roy Brioche v Republic SCA 20/2018 in wh ich case the crew members were convicted, and sentenced for drugs offences. It is also an averment in Supt Prinsloo's affidavit in support of the application, that the extraction of the phone number of the Ist Respondent shows, that she has saved the phone number + 258847092280 as "Moy" and + 2784617833 as "Moyo", and that an extraction of the phone data of one Natasia Chang- Tave, recently convicted and sentenced to prison for drugs trafficking, reveals, that in a conversation between Natasia Chang- Tave and Moyo, the 1st Respondent was implicated with Natasia in drugs trafficking. [49] Supt Prinsloo averred, that Natasia Chang-Tave was arrested by the ANB on the 26th March 2019 for drugs trafficking and conspiracy to trafficking in a controlled drug, as well as Steve Chang-Tave who handed himself over on the 28th March 2019, both in CR 248/2019. Natasia pleaded guilty to the charges and has since been convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment, whereas, the case against Steve Chang-Tave is still ongoing. Supt Prinsloo also averred, that after Natasia's arrest, information was extracted from her cell phone + 2482717423 that confirms, that on the 9th February 2019, Natasia had a WhatsApp conversation with Moyo who was in South Africa. In that conversation, Natasia asked Moyo whether he had a contact in South Africa to get drugs to take to Seychelles, and Moyo repl ied that he doesn't have a contact, and that Liza (the 1st Respondent) does have a good contact. [50] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in their conversation, Natasia told Mayo that Liza (the 1st Respondent) doesn't want to give her the contact, and when Natasia asked Mayo whether Liza is still taking, and when last time she took, Mayo replied "Wednesday". When Natasia asked Mayo whether Liza came back to Seychelles on Wednesday or arrived in South Africa on Wednesday, Mayo replied "arrived here" (meaning in South Africa). Supt Prinsloo also averred, that Natasia did ask Moyo what the price of drugs in South Africa was and Moyo told her that 1kg of Heroine was ZAR 190,000 and I kg Cocaine ZAR 400,000. Supt Prinsloo deponed, that after analyzing Liza's travel history, it is confirmed, that she did travel to South Africa on the 6th February 2019 and came back to Seychelles on the 9th February 20 19. Supt Prinsloo also deponed that FCIU's investigation into Liza's foreign exchange transactions found that she purchased USD 20,000 (SCR 285,000.00) from Cash Plus on the 4th February 2019, two days before she travelled to South Africa. Supt Prinsloo further deponed, that as per the price stated by Moyo, 1.5kg heroine cost ZAR 285,000.00. [51] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the SCR 285,000.00 which Liza exchanged for USD 20,000.00 did not come from her Absa Bank account No held in the name of Liz a Boutique, nor from the Nouvobanq account No Liza had stated on the "source of funds declaration form" she completed, that the source of funds was "from business" and that the propose transaction is also "business", exhibit HP18. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Natasia Chang-Tave did have a WhatsApp conversation with one Adam in Tanzania on + 255658504387, and that the former did ask the latter to send her a copy of his passport. The date of birth on the latter's passport is 19th October 1978. Supt Prinsloo averred, that drug traffickers have different phone numbers in different countries, and that it is his belief, that this Adam, is one and the same Adam who has been in contact with Natasia and Liza. [52] Supt Prinsloo averred, that in a WhatsApp conversation between Natasia and Adam on the 30th November 2018, Natasia asked Adam to talk to her and tell her how she is going to get the money back as she doesn't have anyone on the boat. Supt Prinsloo also averred, that Natasia told Adam that she doesn't want Liza and Neddy to take anything for her again. Supt Prinsloo also averred, that in a telephone conversation between Natasia and Adam on the 8th December 2018, Natasia asked Adam about a boat Gallerna 3 which Liza had told her is in Seychelles. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that a purse seiner by the name of "Gallerna 3" is registered in Seychelles. [53] It is an averment in Supt Prinsloo's affidavit in support of the application, that in another conversation on the II th February 2019 between Adam and Natasia, Natasia told Adam that she did not receive any cargo even the one meant to be on "Gallerna 3" that Liza was supposed to buy for her. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in that very same conversation, Natasia asked Adam what happened to "Gallerna 3" as Liza had told her that she could not get hold of him (Adam). Supt Prinsloo averred, that Adam's reply was that Liza had told him the same thing, and that he doesn't know anything about "Gallerna 3". Adam also stated, that he trust Liza and that he doesn't think that she is cheating them. To further establish Liza's connection with Natasia, Supt Prinsloo also averred, that Liza's phone number is saved in the contacts ofNatasia under the name Liza as 2603341 and 2804131. The latter number is also Liza's Facebook page Zoli Boutique. This number was also used by Liza contact the FCIU when enquiring about the money seized from her. l54] Supt Prinsloo averred, that FCIU did probe into the sale and purchase transaction of land parcel S2254 situate at Cascade, Mahe. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in a joint search and seizure operation between the FCIU and the ANB held on the lSISeptember 2020 at house No 10 Roche Caiman where Liza (the pi Respondent) and Neddy (the 2nd Respondent) live, certain documents were seized in line with Section 25(3) (d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 2016 (MODA). Supt Prinsloo also averred, that the documents were examined and that they discovered, that one Jerry Barrack the yd Respondent, paid SCR 10,000.00 for the subdivision of the said parcel of land into two plots. The size of one of the plots was to be 615 square, and the size of the other plot was to be 3805 meter square, exhibit HP20. Supt Prinsloo further averred, that amongst the documents seized, there was a Land Purchase Agreement ( LPA ) dated 7th August 2019 made between Jerry Barack (the 3rd Respondent) and Neddy Roger, Lagrenade (the 2nd Respondent) and Liza, Michelle Marie (the pi Respondent) exhibit HP21. As per the terms and conditions of the LPA, the owner of parcel S2254 was Jerry Barrack and he was selling part of parcel S2254 to the extent of 615 square to Neddy, Roger, Lagrenade and Liza, Michelle Marie (the purchasers) for the price of SCR 500,000.00. A sum of SCR 100,000.00 was to be paid by the purchasers upon signing the agreement on the 71h August 2019. [55] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that to make up for the purchase price of SCR 500,000.00, it was a term of the LPA, that the purchasers, (Liza and Neddy) were to transfer motor vehicle S23423, a Hyundai Grand i 10 onto the seller (Jerry Barrack) in full and final settlement of the purchase price. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that based on this condition, the value of the said vehicle was SCR 400,000.00. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the said vehicle S23423 is registered in the name of one Randy Jermy Hoareau of North East Point, Mahe, Seychelles, exhibit L-IP22. This, as per the deposition of Supt Prinsloo, makes the whole transaction a suspicious one. [56] It is deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that the FCIU did interview Jerry Barack on the 13th October 2020, and that in the interview he said that the LPA was genuine. He also confirmed receipt of two cash payments in the sum of SCR 50,000.00. The first payment when they signed the LPA on the 7th August 2019 and another cash payment of SCR 50,000.00 a week after. It is also deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that Jerry Barack did confirm, that on the day they signed the LPA, he took possession of vehicle S23423 registered in the name of Randy Jenny, Hoareau valued SCR 225,000.00 at the 2nu Respondent's place, and that Neddy still owes him SCR 175,000.00. As averred by Supt Prinsloo, this sale and purchase transaction does not make any commercial sense, and the terms of the LPA were not adhered to. [57] It is deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that vehicle S23423 is registered in the name of Randy, Jenny, Hoareau and yet made part of the consideration for the sale and purchase of parcel S2254 to the pi and 2nd Respondents. It is also deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that when he was asked why the vehicle is still not registered in his name and why part of parcel S2254 subject to the LPA has not been registered in the name of Liza and Neddy, his answer was that Neddy still owes him SCR 175,000.00, and that he is not going to register the land on their names until he is paid the SCR 175,000.00. It is further deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that Randy Jenny Hoareau was also interviewed by the FC[U about the ownership of vehicle S23423. As averred by Supt Prinsloo, Hoareau told the FC[U that he is the rightful owner of the said vehicle, and that the wife of Jerry Barack is renting the said vehicle from him at the rate of SCR 300 per day. [58] It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that it makes no sense and that it makes the transaction very suspicious, that a vehicle that is already part a LPA is already being rent to a third party, more so, given that Jerry Barack had paid SCR 10,000.00 for the parcel of land S2254 to be subdivided although the terms of the agreement of the LPA has not been fully honoured. As averred by Supt Prinsloo, the transaction is considered to be more suspicious given that Hoareau himself is well known to the ANB to be involved in drugs related activities having been arrested three times for possession of control drugs. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that vehicle S23423 was purchased with proceeds of crime, and that the beneficial owner, Liza and Neddy opted to register the said vehicle, and that only a real owner can used a vehicle as barter trading in a deal. Supt Prinsloo is of the view, that had the documents not been discovered at the time the search was conducted, the true nature of the LPA would not have been known and would have remained concealed. Supt Prinsloo believes, that vehicle S23423 was purchased with proceeds of crime, and that the beneficial owners, Liza and Neddy opted to register the said vehicle on a third party to conceal the origin of the funds that he strongly believes is from drugs trafficking. [59] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that as part of their investigation, the FCIU did probe into the ownership of other motor vehicles, notably, a Suzuki Swift bearing registration No S2207, a Toyota CHR bearing registration No S 1936 and a I-Iyundai Grand i 10 bearing registration No S4268. As regards to the Suzuki Swift S2207, Supt Prinsloo averred, that as per the record from the SLA, the said vehicle was transferred onto the name of Liza (the Ist Respondent) on the 27th September 2018 without any proof of payment and the purchase price unknown, exhibit I-IP24. Supt Prinsloo also averred, that at the time the transfer of the said vehicle was carried out, Liza's personal account at the Nouvobanq, account number had a balance of less than SCR 2,000.00 for the period from April 2018 to October 20 18, and there was no evidence that payment for the said vehicle was made from her personal bank account held at Nouvobanq. As regards to Liza Boutique bank account No held at the Absa Bank, Supt Prinsloo averred, that at the beginning of September 2018, there was a balance of SCR 64,521.77, and that following a cash Euro sale of SCR 62,545.20 on the 25th September 2018, the remaining balance on the account was SCR 141,496.13. Of the said sum, the sum ofSCR 49,987.35 was used to purchase US Dollars. It is an averment in Supt Prinsloo's affidavit in support of the application, that payment for motor vehicle S2207 was not made from Liza Boutique Absa Bank account. Supt Prinsloo averred, that the absence of proof of payment for the motor vehicle and the absence of documents as to the purchase price, makes him believe, that the said vehicle is the proceeds of crime, namely, drugs trafficking and money-laundering. [60] As regards to motor vehicle Toyota CHR S 1936, it is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the said vehicle was transferred to Liza on the 12th March 2020 without any proof of payment from the SLA's documents received by the FCIU, exhibit HP25. As at the 19th March 2020, Liza's bank balance in her personal account held at the Nouvobanq, account No was SCR 254,543.14. However, the payment for the said vehicle did not come from Liza's Nouvobanq Bank account. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that as at the 9th of March 2020 , Liza Boutique's bank account held at the Absa Bank had a balance of SCR 1410.19, and that no transactions pertain ing to the account were recorded for the 1110nthof March 2020. Thus payment for the said vehicle did not come from this account. In that regard, Supt Prinsloo believes, that the absence of proof of payment means, that payment for the vehicle was from an illegitimate source, that is, money obtained from drugs trafficking. It is the belief of Supt Prinsloo, that the said vehicle is the proceeds of crime, namely, drugs trafficking and money laundering. [61] As regards to motor vehicle, vehicle was transferred J-Iyundai Grand i I0, S4268, Supt Prinsloo deponed, the onto the name of Neddy (the 2nd Respondent) on the io- of May that 2018 and that the documents for the transfer obtained from SLA, include a "change of Ownership" document stating, that the purchase price is SCR 160,000.00 to be paid by instalments of SCR 10,000.00, exhibit HP26. Supt Prinsloo also deponed, that in view that Neddy had no bank account, the FCIU probed into Liza's bank accounts. As at the 4thApril 2018, Liza's bank account No held at the Nouvobanq Bank had a balance of SCR 56.56, and there were no transactions in the account for the months of May June, July and August 2018. lt is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that payment for the purchase of S4268 was not made from the account, whether in full or in instalment of SCR 10,000.00. [62] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Liza Boutique's bank account held at the Absa Bank was also analysed. [t was found, that at the beginning of May 2018, the account had a balance ofSCR 98,710.67 and that no payment for any vehicle was made from that account, and that no instalment payments of SCR 10,000.00 were made from that account. Supt Prinsloo averred, that the WhatsApp conversation extracted, the other phone calls records as well as these transactions involving the motor vehicles, make it clear to him, that Liza and Neddy are both involved in drugs trafficking and money- laundering, and that the transactions they did were to conceal the origin of the money. Supt Prinsloo is of the belief, that the vehicles are proceeds of crime namely, drugs trafficking and money laundering. [63] In his affidavit in support of the application, Supt Prinsloo also deponed about a boat, "REBECCA" (Planning Hull). He averred, that on the loth June 2020, a white vessel entered the "Victoria channel" with its crew on board suspected of conducting illegal activities. The two member crew were asked by t\NB officers to stop the vessel which they ignored as the white vessel speed away to the Swift lift zone 20, Providence. When ANB officers reached the jetty at Zone 20, Providence they found only one person, and that person was Patrick Laporte. It is further deponed by Supt Prinsloo, that amongst the documents that were seized following the search and seizure operation carried out at House No 10, Roche Caiman on the ISI September 2020 where Liza and Neddy live, was a copy of sales invoice 35736 dated Slh June 2020. Supt Prinsloo averred that as per the said sales invoice, 650.1 litres unleaded fuel was purchased at Taylor Smith Naval Services Ltd for the boat "Rebecca", exhibit HP27. Supt Prinsloo also avers, that the FCIU did conduct a search at Taylor Smith in search for documents pertaining to the boat "Rebecca", and that a Taylor Smith invoice number GM SRI 20525 dated 3 l" January 2020 was found. As per the said invoice, the vessel "Rebecca" was pressure washed by Taylor Smith and the customer who brought the vessel was Patrick Laporte, exhibit HP28. [64] It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the FCIU did carry out a search at the Seychelles Maritime Safety Administration (the SMSA). The FCIU obtained from the SMSA a document by which the Director of Yellow Fins Charter Company, one Alex Monthy, informed the SMSA on the 18th October 2017, that the vessel "Rebecca" has been sold to Steve Chang-Tave, exhibit HP29. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Alex Mouthy is well known to the FCJU and the ANB for being well connected and involved in the drugs trafficking network. [65] In his affidavit in support of the instant application, Supt Prinsloo averred that the FCIU obtained three Court orders in terms of Section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended, against several immovable properties as well as movable properties, notably, motor vehicles, owned by Steve Chang-Tave and his wife Natasia Chang- Tave, both of whom are involved in the drug trafficking network in Seychelles. Natasia Chang-Tave has recently pleaded guilty to drugs related offences and is serving a term of imprisonment of 6 years, whereas, the case against Steve Chang- Tave is ongoing. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that in respect of the vessel "Rebecca", the FCIU did apply for an order of the Supreme Court under Section 3 of the Process of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended, and that the order was made on the 5th October 2020 following which the FCIU proceeded to take possession of the said vessel after Neddy had handed over to the FCIU the keys. [66] It is the affidavit evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that based on the documents obtained by the FCIU, one Steve Chang- Tave purchased the vessel "Rebecca" from Alex Monthy on the 18thOctober 2017, and that he believes, the purchase was funded by illicit funds from drugs trafficking. Supt Prinsloo is of the belief that the vessel, "Rebecca" was not funded by legitimate funds, but rather, that it could have been funded through an exchange of controlled drugs given that this is one of many ways that drug dealers operate, both, in this country and throughout the world. It is also the affidavit evidence of Supt Prinsloo, that based on the FCIU's analysis of Liza's and Liza Boutique's bank statements, that payment for the vessel "Rebecca" did not come from these bank accounts. Nor did Patrick paid for the vessel "Rebecca" which was valued at SCR 740,000.00 by Dan's Survey 011 the 30th June 2020. It is averred by Supt Prinsloo, that Counsel representing Liza and Neddy, did contact the FCIU on the 12thOctober 2020 to say that Neddy bought the vessel from the late Dereck Porice 5 years ago, but could not support her claim by any documents in the light of the documents obtained from the SMSA showing that Steve Chang- Tave purchased the vessel in 2019. It is also averred by Supt Prinsloo, that the fact, that Counsel mentioned the name of Dereck Porice, the very same Poriee (now deceased) who was known to the FCIU and the ANB, supports his belief that the vessel "Rebecca" is proceeds of crime. It is further averred by Supt Prinsloo, that following an application made to the Supreme Court on the 15"h October 2020 by the FCIU under Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act, 2008 as amended for an interim seizure order of these properties, and for him to be appointed as receiver, 011 the 16th October 2020, the Supreme Court granted the application and accordingly made the order sought for. THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S REPLY. [67] The l " Respondent Liza, Michelle, Marie did file an affidavit meant to be in reply to the Applicant's application. In her affidavit, the )St Respondent makes several averments referenced to different applications made ex parte and inter parte, filed against her pursuant to Section 3 of POCCCA, effectively giving a brief history of the case as borne out of the Court's records, thus saving the Court from rehearsing the history of the case. [68] The I st Respondent does make specific mention to the inter parte application filed as MC76/2020, made pursuant to Section 3 of POCCCA, which application, she avers, was allowed in respect of the specified property, that is, SCR 197,90 or Euro 9390, and the appointment of one Hein Prinsloo as the receiver of the said property. She also makes specific mention of ex parte application filed as XP 128/2020 that was allowed in respect ofa planning Hull boat named "Rebecca" with draft holding twin Suzuki 300HP engine by virtue of a Court's ruling dated 5th October 2020, in which ruling, the Court appointed Supt Michel Murphy as receiver. The application was granted for 30 days. [69] The 1st Respondent avers, that a further application ( ) was filed ex parte by the Applicant on the 15th October 2020 pursuant to Section 3 of POCCC A, which application was granted with a duration of 30 days as of the 16 October 2020. Mr. Hein Prinsloo was appointed receiver under Section 8 of POCCCA. The 1st Respondent also avers, that before the 30 days lapsed, the Applicant sold, at public auction, vehicles S1936, S2207, S23423, S4268 and the boat Rebecca. [70] It is averred by the 1st Respondent, that by virtue of application 8912020 filed by way of Notice of Motion supported by affidavit, the Applicant seeks for an interlocutory order pursuant to Section 4 of POCCCA. It is also averred by the 1st Respondent, that following an interim application filed as 139/2020, an interim order was made dated 16m October 2020 under Section 3 of POCCCA. Mr. Hein Prinsloo was appointed receiver of the properties pursuant to Section 8 of POCCCA. The properties subject to the interim orders were, motor vehicle S23423, S2207, S 1936, S4260, and a parcel of land registered as title S 13370 (Subdivision of S2254). [71] In her answer to the application for an order under Section 4 of POCCCA and for the appointment of Hein Prinsloo as receiver of the properties, the l " Respondent avers, that she has been advised, and verily believes, that the interim orders made under Section 3 or POCCCA was simply to preserve the properties lor 30 days whilst she remains the legal owner of those properties. She then proceeds to raise the question whether the Applicant can ask the Court to appoint a receiver. The 151 Respondent cites the case of Hackl v Financial Intell igence Unit [2010] SLR, and submits that in this case, the Constitutional Court had held that orders under Section 3 of POCCCA are meant to be "temporary and limited in duration", and intended to preserve the property. [72] It is averred by the ISI Respondent, that an interim order under Section 3 of POCCCA is for a duration of 30 days from the date of the making of the order, and that in the instant case, the Applicant has disposed of the properties in question when under Section 3 of POCCCA, it ought to have retain possession of the same in the absence ofa Disposal Order. The Court is referred to Section 5( I) of POCCCA, and the case of Government of Seychelles v John Sifflore and Ors. The jSl Respondent avers, that there has been no interlocutory orders made in this case, but rather, ex parte interim orders instead. She avers, therefore, that the properties in question were sold in violation of Section 5(2) of POCCCA. [73] It is an averment made by the J 51 Respondent, that she is precluded by virtue of Section 22 of POCCCA from appealing against the interim orders made, and that the only remedy available to her is to ask the Court to set aside the interim orders and to restore her to the status quo ante. That is to say, in the position she would have been in before the interim orders were made. The l" Respondent avers, that the only remedy available to her is to seek for a discharge of the ex parte order under Section 3(3) of POCCCA in order to put her in the position she would have been prior to the disposal of the properties. The 151 Respondent also avers, that the Court should declare that the "disposal of the properties violates the specific provisions of POCCCA and to make such orders as the Court deems fit. [74] The 2nd Respondent too filed an affidavit in reply containing averments which substantially replicate the averments in the 151 Respondent's affidavit in reply to the application. To avoid a repetition, I will not rehearse the averments made in the 2nd Respondent's affidavit. I am, however, mystified by the content of the I SI and 2nd Respondents' affidavit in reply which in my considered opinion, do not adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the affidavit evidence of Supt Hein Prinsloo and - Johny Malvina. All that the ISI and 2nd Respondents seek to do is to make averments in order to give a brief history of the case, criticise the Court's handling of the case, and discuss certain legal provisions under POCCCA. [75] Hence, if we are to concur with the proposition that an affidavit is a way of adducing evidence and that it is in line with oral evidence (see ) one would certainly agree, that the l" and 2nd Respondents' affidavit is a meagre one that offers the Court with no evidence in rebuttal of Supt Hein Prinsloo's affidavit to assist it in the determination of the instant application. Some of the averments in the affidavit are those type that one would normally come across in pleadings. For example, the 151 and 2nd Respondent's request for the Court to set aside the interim orders made under Section 3 of POCCCA which has no relevance to the current proceedings. THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S REPLY. [76] In reply to the application, the 3rd Respondent did file an affidavit in reply. In his affidavit, he avers, that he is the owner and proprietor of a parcel of land registered as title S2254, and that by virtue of a Land Purchase Agreement ("LPA") dated 711~August 2019 between him and the Ist and 2nd Respondents, they agreed that a portion of land, title S2254 to the extent of 615 m2, would be extracted and sold to the pI and 2nd Respondents. It is also averred by the 3rd Respondent, that the land title S2254 has since been subdivided, and that title S 13370 which is subject of the application for seizure, under the terms of the LPA is to be transferred onto the ISI and 2nd Respondents' name for an agreed consideration of SCR 500,000.00, plus the transfer of a motor vehicle registered as S23423. [77] The 3rd Respondent further avers, that he inherited the land, parcel title S2254 from the succession of his late father Simon, Isidore, Barrack who at the time of his death owned the land and that he left behind only him as the sale surviving legal heir. It is an averment in the yd Respondent's affidavit in reply, that the LPA between him and the )S1 and 2nd Respondents, contains no time limit for the payment of the consideration of SCR 500,000.00 to him and the transfer of the motor vehicle S23423 to him by the Ist and 2nd Respondents. By his averment, the 3rd Respondent denies the Applicant's proposition "that there is no commercial justification in respect of the agreed transaction under the Land Purchase Agreement." [78] Jt is further averred by the 3rc! Respondent, that the pi and 2nd Respondents still have a balance of SCR 175,00.00 due on the SCR 500,000.00 to pay him as well as to effect the transfer of motor vehicle S23423 onto his name for the transfer of the land title S13370 on their joint names in order to complete the sale and purchase transactions. The 3rd Respondent avers, that for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs of his affidavit in reply, there is no reasonable justification for the Applicant to have the belief that the land parcel title S 13370 may have been obtained directly or indirectly through proceeds of crime or otherwise. The yd Respondent moves the Court to release the said parcel of land title S 13370 and to dismiss the applicant's application against him. THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S REPLY. [79] In his affidavit in reply, the 4U1 Respondent, one Randy Jeremy Hoareau denies that motor vehicle S23423, a Hyundai Grand iI0, which is the subject of the Applicant's application for seizure was obtained through proceeds of crime. The 4111 Respondent also denies that the said motor vehicle has been obtained either directly or indirectly from proceeds of crime or otherwise. [80] The 4th Respondent avers, that he purchased the motor vehicle which is registered on his sole name, and that the said vehicle is available for hire at the rate of SCR 300 per day, although he possesses no license to rent the said motor vehicle. The 4th Respondent also avers, that prior to its seizure, the said motor vehicle S23423 was being rented out. He added, that he is unaware of any transaction involving the said motor vehicle S23423 between the yo Respondent and the Ist and 2no Respondents, and that, he has no connection with them as alleged by the Applicant in their supporting affidavit to the application. [81] It is averred by the 4th Respondent, that based on the averments in the affidavit in support of the Applicant's application, that "there is no reasonable justification of the Applicant for the belief that the said vehicle may have been obtained directly or indirectly from proceeds ofcrime or otherwise, and as such, he moves the Court to release the vehicle in his custody and dismiss the Applicant's application against him. " THE APPLlCANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION. [82] In her closing written submission, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits, that the beliefs of Superintendent (Supt) Hein Prinsloo are grounded on the facts as averred in his affidavit in support of the application for the Interlocutory and the Receivership orders being sought for which she summarises, as follows; 1. ii. The possession of Euro 9390.00 and the non-declaration thereof also the lack of supporting documents to show its source; The different versions of Liza 's explanation to Customs and to the FCIU with regards to the reasons she went to Dubai; iii. Thefact that Liza could not prove the origin of the money and the fact that she told Customs she exchanged it at ABSA and to the FCIU she stated that she exchanged it at Cash Plus, JPL and Mahe Exchange; iv. The travel arrangements that Liza explained to Customs and the totally different version that the FCIU detected during their investigation is proof that Liza is hiding the truth; v. The WhatsApp conversation between known drug traffickers and associates in other countries and the mentioning of the names of Liza and Neddy as well as confirmation that Liza and Neddy are involved in drug trafficking; vi. The large amounts of money exchanged at various bureau des changes and the fact that the amounts cannot be explained by their legitimate income is a clear indication that Liza and Neddy and Laporte are all involved in illicit trafficking of controlled drugs; vii. The confirmation that Liza travelled 10 South Africa on Wednesday 6'" February that was confirmed by "Moyo " as well as the USD 20,000 (SCR 285,000) taken out of Seychelles. The price/or]. 5 kg heroin (according to the WhatsApp conversation of Nat asia and Moyo is the exact amount (SCR 285, 000) that Liza exchanged at the money exchanger and isfurther proof that Liza is involved in drug trafficking; VIII. The amount of money exchanged in paragraph vii supra does not in any way reflect in any of the bank accounts that Liza has,' ix. The lack of proof of legitimate payment for the vehicles as well as the concealment of the true owners of the vehicles and the barter trading deal done on the property as well as the lack of the enforcement of the contract "withregard to the property, is evidence of the concealment of ownership and origin offunds,' x. The unexplained purchase of the vessel "Rebecca" and the previous ownership that clearly indicated that the vessel was purchased with proceeds of crime. The different versions received by the FCIU as to who the beneficial owner is and when the 'Rebecca' was purchased is proof of the concealment of the true owner as well as the funds used to purchase the boat.; xi. The existence of the papers which indicated the purchase of a parcel of land from Barrack,' xii. The concealing and disguising of the source of the funds or the true nature of the funds is an offence of Money Laundering. To aid and abet or assist someone to conceal or disguise the origin of money to purchase the property is also an offence of Money Laundering. A person guilty of Money Laundering is liable on conviction to a fine of SCR 5,000,000.00 or imprisonment for 15years or both, and xiii. That the different explanations given by Liza and the anomalies detected in this, my affidavit including that in the paragraphs above, I am of the belief that the crimina! conduct ofwhich the said properties have been acquired in whole or in part is Drug Trafficking and Money Laundering; " [83] As against the Respondents' individually, it is submitted by learned Counsel, that Supt Prinsloo's beliefs as regards to the Ist Respondent, Liza, Michelle Marie, stems from the fact, that upon her return frOI11Dubai on the 20lh August 2020, she had in her possession euro 9390 and yet she had completed a disembarkation form declaring that she did not have more than SCR 10,000 in cash in her possession. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the 151 Respondent did that because she intended to conceal that she had the euro 9390 in her possession for the reason that she knew that it was proceeds of crime. As per learned Counsel's submission, the l " Respondent "being a well-seasoned and frequent traveller, knows that Euro 9390 converted into USD exceeds SCR I0,000 and that she wanted to conceal the proceeds of crime. [84] It is submitted by learned Counsel, that there are contradictions in the 151 Respondent's answers as to the source of the euros as she had f rst stated, that she bought the euros from Barclays Bank and when she was first interviewed and in her interview by FCIU Officers, she said that she exchanged cash Seychelles Rupees for forex at Cash Plus, JPL exchange and Mahe Exchange Bureau des Charges, when, as per Supt Prinsloo's testimony, their financial investigation led them to find that she did not purchase the euros at the Barclays Bank. It is also submitted by learned Counsel, that the story by the 1SI Respondent (hat she went to Dubai to attend a course in hair dresser and Nail, and that she paid Dirham 2500 but could not produce a receipt, lacks credibility given that it is common practice that one would normally have to pay up front for enrolment on the course, more so, because the course being a short term one. Learned Counsel also brings to the attention of the Court of the 151 Respondent's contradiction when she later told the FCIU that she had travelled to furnish her clothing shop, "Step Up", when she had previously told custom officers that she went on a course. [85] It is the submission of the Applicant, with reference to the phone call made by the 15\ Respondent on the 2nd September 2020 to the FCIU, by which phone call she indicated that she needed the money back to pay the salaries and her loan, that if indeed the money she took with her to Dubai she paid for the course or buy clothes for "Step Up", that money could not have been part of the budget to pay salaries and the loan. The Applicant also submits, that there is another contradiction made by the 15t Respondent when she was interviewed by customs, in that, when she was asked whether she travelled alone she said "yes", and when she was interviewed by FCIU she said that she travelled with two other ladies. [86] It is the submission of learned Counsel, that the 15tRespondent has contradicted herself when she said that she had planned the trip to Dubai since December 2021, since the evidence shows, that she only paid the airfares to Ocean Air Travel on the 13thMarch 2020 instead of Buns on which had closed since 2020, and that she was to travel to South Africa instead of Dubai. On account of the different contradictions made by the l " Respondent, it is submitted by the Applicant, that the I st Respondent has not been truthful in her answers to questions put to her by both, custom and the FCIU. It is submitted by learned Counsel, that such trait is common especially when one's intention is to conceal the source of the funds derived from criminal activities such as drugs trafficking. [87] Submitting on the bank transactions as deponed by Supt Prinsloo as regards to the 1st Respondent's bank account held at the Nouvobanq, learned Counsel submits, that the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle, a Vezel registration number S6172 registered in the name of Sandra, Marisa, Eva Marie, (the Ist Respondent's sister) sold to Janick Pool for SCR 200,000 was transferred and credited into the 151Respondent's bank account held at Nouvobanq instead of her sister who owned the vehicle then, and who had two bank accounts, one at MCB and the other at the Seychelles Credit Union. It is the submission of the Applicant, that on account of the transactions, the t st Respondent was the ultimate beneficial owner of veh icle S6172. [88] It is also submitted by the Applicant, that a similar transaction took place on the 4th August 2020 pertaining to the sale of motor vehicle S3253 which was registered in the name of the ISI Respondent's sister Sandra, sold and transferred to one Ashley S Labeleine and Antoine N Labeleine on the 41hAugust 2020, the proceeds of which, in the sum of SCR 130,000 ended up in the account of the 151Respondent held at the Nouvobanq. The Applicant submits, that the ISI Respondent, given that they both know that these specified properties are proceeds of crime, particularly, drugs trafficking. [89] Submitting on Supt Prinsloo's evidence as regards to the various financial transactions that took place in 2019 and 2020 in respect of the 151Respondent's bank account held at the Absa bank, the Applicant stated, that the evidence shows, that during that period, the 151 Respondent conducted a total of 10 forex transactions in the total sum of SCR 926,870.00 at different money exchangers in 2019, and 13 transactions at different money exchangers in 2020 in the total sum ofSCR 415,600.15. It is submitted by the Applicant, that based on Supt Prinsloo's testimony, those large sum of money did not come from her bank accounts, and that there were no presumptive tax returns or business tax returns lodged by either the l " or the 2nd Respondent who is the pi Respondent's partner. Within the background of these factual information, it is submitted by the Applicant, that these funds derived from the 1st Respondent's drug trafficking business. [90] Within the background of these facts as deponed by Supt Prinsloo, it is the contention of learned Counsel, that should the t sr Respondent tries to explain that the cash derived from her businesses, that explanation cannot be satisfactory, given that her total imports for the year 20 I9 was SCR 176,409.00, and that even if she was to make a profit of 100 percents, her total income would have been SCR 352,8 t 8.00 only. It is also the contention of learned Counsel, that the 151Respondent did not lodge any presumptive tax returns for Liza Boutique for the year 2019 and that the total amount of money exchanged at the money changers exceeded this profit margin by far. [91] Learned Counsel refers to the search by ANB and Fcru carried out at the residence of the 151and 2nd Respondents in September 2020 when the driving licence of one Patrick Laporte was seen, and submits, that it is common in this country, for one to use his driving licence as a means of identification. Learned Counsel makes mention of the fact, that in the year 2019, the said Patrick Laporte, whose bank account with MCB, account has been inactive since March 2018 and as at July 2020 had a bank balance of SCR 90.53 only, had conducted a total of 6 bureau de change forex transactions at different money exchangers in the total sum ofSCR 571,529.00, and 6 transactions in the total sum ofSCR 510,268.00 in 2020. [92] It is the Applicant's submission, that the Isl and 2nd Respondents had the driving licence of Patrick Laporte in their possession because he was helping the Ist Respondent to exchange large sum of money to avoid detection. Learned Counsel states, that as per the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, the exchange transactions at the Bureau des changes by Patrick Laporte and the 151Respondent combined in 2019, added up to SCR 1498,399.00, and from January to September 2020 SCR 925,928.15. Referring to those figures, it is submitted by the Applicant, that it cannot be possible for the pi Respondent to have obtained such large amount of money from legitimate sources. [93] Commenting on the documents submitted to the FCIU based on the evidence of Supt Prinsloo that on the 3 pi August 2020, the pi Respondent handed over several documents comprising of copies of her bank statements as well as entries from her business book for June, July and August 2020 of La Diva and Serenity in her attempt to explain the source of the euros seized, it is the submission of learned Counsel, that the FC[U detected several anomalies. For example, there were no records of regular expenses of rent and electricity. Rent for June 2020 was recorded in the sum of 7500, whereas, for July 2020 it was SCR 15,000, and nothing was recorded for August 2020. [94] It is the submission of the Applicant, that the record did not tally because they did not make any commercial sense, and that the lSi Respondent had forged documents in order to support the amount of cash found in her possession. It is also the submission of the Applicant, that had those documents been available, the Respondent would not have taken that long to produce them. Learned Counsel points to the fact that in her interview with FC1U, the Respondent had said, that she has two shops, La Diva and Step Up, but produced supporting documents for La Diva and Serenity instead. Learned Counsel notes, that the evidence shows, that La Diva, Serenity and Step Up are not registered on the lSI Respondent's name. Learned Counsel also notes, that on her own admission, the I~I Respondent is the real beneficial owner of La Diva and Step Up, which the Applicant submits are front companies being used by the JSI Respondent to conceal the origin of the money which she derives from drug trafficking. [95] Rehearsing the evidence of Supt Prinsloo about the (SI Respondent's involvement in drug trafficking, learned Counsel submits, that on the 91hFebruary 2019, Natashia Changtave, a drugs convict, had a WhatsApp conversation with one Moyo on cell phone 4 27846178333 who was at the time in South Africa who told her that he doesn't have a contact there, but Liza, (the Ist Respondent) does have a good drug contact. From the conversation, Moyo confirmed, that the pi Respondent did arrive in South Africa on the 61hFebruary 2019, which matches her travel history as per the documents obtained. This shows, that the lSI Respondent travelled to South Africa on Wednesday 6th February 2019 on Air Seychelles flight HM061 and came back to Seychelles on the 9Vh February 2019 011 Air Seychelles flight HM060. [96) Learned Counsel also refers to the evidence, that the pi Respondent purchased USD 20,000.00 equivalent to SCR 285,000.00 from cash plus on the 41hFebruary 2019, two days prior to her departure. The exchange rate between the ZAR and SCR then was approximately I ZAR to 0.985 SCR. As per their telephone conversation, and according to Moyo, the selling price for 1 kg heroin is ZAR 190.08. It is the submission of learned Counsel, that 1.5 kg of heroin from South Africa cost ZAR 285,000.00, around the same amount of money the 1SIRespondent purchased which did not come from her bank account, and which money was to be used to buy drugs. [97] Referring to the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, learned Counsel submits, that a search and seizure operation was conducted jointly by the ANB and the FCIU at the residence of the Ist and 2nd Respondents on the Ist September 2020 where a Land Purchase Agreement between one Jerry Barrack, and the l " and 2nd Respondents dated T'" August 2019 pertaining to title S 13370 was found. As to the terms of the Agreement, the purchasers who were the l " and 2nd Respondents, were to pay the seller, Jerry Barrack SCR 100,000 on the date the agreement is signed, and then transfer vehicle S23423, a Hyundai Grand i lOin full and final settlement. Learned Counsel points to the fact, that as per the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, vehicle S23423 is registered in the name of one Randy Jenny, Hoareau of North East Point, the 4th Respondent. In the light of this evidence, the Applicant submits, that the said vehicle became part of the terms and conditions of the purchase and sale of the land because the purchasers, the Ist and 2nd Respondents, are the true owners of the vehicle although it is registered in the name of Randy Jerrny Hoareau, the 4th Respondent. It is also submitted by the Applicant, that the document pertaining to the sale and purchase of the land was never registered because the I st and 2nd Respondents did not want the transaction to be traced back to either of them given their involvement in drugs trafficking. [98] Learned Counsel brings to the attention of his Court, that as per the evidence laid before it by Supt Prinsloo, a Suzuki Swift registered as S2207 was transferred onto the 15t Respondent's name on the 27th September 2018 without any proof of pageant from her bank account. It was found, following the FCID's investigation, that the purchase was for SCR 310, 000 without proof of payment produced at the Seychelles Licensing Authority. It is submitted by the Applicant, that this is because the Ist Respondent wanted to conceal the origin of the money believes to derive from drugs trafficking. FCIU's investigation, and receipt of the Seychelles Licensing Authority's (SLA) records, confirm, that a motor vehicle S 1936, a Toyota CHR, was transferred to the 1st Respondent on the l2th March 2020 without any proof of payment tendered to SLA. The investigation couldn't ascertain the purchase price, although, it did confirm, that the purchase price was not made from the 1st Respondent's bank account. Within these background evidence, the Applicant submits, that the Ist Respondents could not produce any proof of payment because the said motor vehicle S 1936, was purchased with the proceeds of drugs trafficking and money laundering. [99] In her submission as regards to the 2nd Respondent in respect of motor vehicle Hyundai Grand i I0 registered as S4268, learned Counsel submits, that the evidence ofSupt Prinsloo indicates, that the 2nd Respondent does not have a bank account and that the evidence laid before this Court clearly shows, that he used the l " Respondent's bank accounts for his financial transactions. To illustrate that fact, learned Counsel refers this Court to the SCR 450, 000 that were the proceeds of sale of the vehicle registered in the 2nd Respondent's name that was transferred into the J sl Respondent's bank account at the Nouvobanq. Another transaction involving 1110torvehicle was in respect of motor vehicle S4268 which was transferred on the z= Respondent on the J QIIl May 2018. On the "change of owner the purchase price for the vehicle is SCR J 60,000.00 to be paid by ship" document, instalments. As per the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, proof of payment was not reflected on the I st Respondent's bank statements, nor supported by the Seychelles Licensing documents. It is submitted by the Applicant, that this has been another attempt by the lSI and 2nd Respondents to conceal their proceeds of drugs trafficking. [100] As per the written submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant in respect of the boat "Rebecca", the evidence ofSupt Prinsloo was that on the 1Olh June 2020, ex-ANB received information that a white vessel entered "Victoria channel" and that the crew on board was suspected of conducting illegal activities. Ex ANB officers ordered the two crew members of the vessel to stop the boat which they ignored. Instead, they increased the speed of the vessel and fled. When ANB officers arrived at the jetty at Zone 20, Providence, only one of the crewrnernber was found on the vessel and that was Patrick Laporte. Amongst the documents that were seized at the [51 and 2'l1ld Respondents' residence according to the testimony of Supt Prinsloo, was a copy of a sales invoice number 35736 dated .sl!h June 2020 which shows, that 650.1 litres of unleaded fuel was purchased at Taylor Smith Naval Services Ltd for the boat Rebecca. [101] Learned Counsel submits, that based on the evidence ofSupt Prinsloo, the FClU did obtain a search warrant to conduct a search at Taylor Smith for any documents in respect of the vessel Rebecca. A Taylor Smith invoice number SMSRI 20525 dated 31st January 2020 was discovered, which showed, that the vessel Rebecca was pressure washed by Taylor Smith and that the customer who took it there was Patrick Laporte, and that the invoice amounting to SCR 17,319.00 was paid cash by Patrick Laporte. Therefore as per the evidence laid before this Court, Patrick Laporte was effectively concealing the proceeds 01 drug trafficking of the 15t and 2nd Respondents. [102] In her written submission, learned Counsel states, that the Applicant submits, that the vessel Rebecca was purchased with the proceeds of crime, namely, drug trafficking. In respect of the evidence of Supt Prinsloo that the Lawyer for the 2nd Respondent did contact the FCI U on the 12th October to say that the 2nd Respondent purchased the vessel from the late Dereck Porice five years ago, learned Counsel calls for the Court to consider that no documents from SMSA was produced, and that, instead, the Director of Yellow Fins Charter Company, one Alex Monthy, informed the SMSA on the 18th October 2017, that the vessel Rebecca has been sold to Steve Chang-Tave. Learned Counsel for the Applicant calls on this Court to consider how could the 2nd Respondent purchased the vessel (property) from the late Dereck Porice 5 years ago, when the vessel was in fact sold to Steve Chang-Tave 4 years ago. In addition, as per the deposition ofSupt Prinsloo, there were no records found as to how the 15tand 2nd Respondents paid for the vessel, "Rebecca". It is the submission of the Applicant, therefore, that consideration for the deal was by way of an exchange of controlled drug, given that the 15t and 2nd Respondents are involved in drugs trafficking. [103] In her written submission as regards to the 3rd Respondent, Jerry Barrack, learned Counsel focuses on the evidence of Supt Prinsloo that a Land Purchase Agreement (LPA) was seized at the residence of the I st and 2nd Respondents on the Ist September 2020, made between the I st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Learned Counsel reminds the Court of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which were that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were to pay the 3rd Respondent (the seller of title S 13370) SCR 100,000.00 on the day of the signing of the agreement that was on the 7th August 2019, plus the transfer of motor vehicle Hyundai Grand i 10 registered as S23423 on the 3rd Respondent's name as the final settlement. Learned Counsel refers to the affidavit sworn by the 4th Respondent on the 30th November 2020, and his claim that motor vehicle S23423 belongs to him. [104] It is noted by learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the 3rd Respondent did not take issue with the 4thRespondent's claim that vehicle S23423, which under the terms and conditions of the Land Purchase Agreement was to be part of the consideration for the land transfer onto the names of the l" and 2nd Respondents. It is submitted by the Applicant, that the only possible explanation is that the 3rd Respondent knows very well that the vehicle S23423 belongs to the 151and 2nd Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Applicant refers the Court to paragraph 4 of the 3rd Respondent's affidavit by which he admits that the purchasers, the l " and 2nd Respondents, have yet to pay him the remaining balance ofSCR 175,000 due for the transfer of the land parcel S2254. lt is the submission of learned Counsel, that it is safe for the Applicant to therefore conclude, that the 3rd Respondent having received SCR 100,00.00 from the purchasers, (the 1st and 2nd Respondents) when the said vehicle has been valued at SCR 225,000. It is also the submission of learned Counsel, that it doesn't make any commercial sense for the 3rd Respondent to have accepted SCR 225,000 for a vehicle that was previously bought for SCR 75,000. It is therefore submitted by the Applicant, that the 3rd Respondent did not bother about the real value of that vehicle because he knew that he was paid with drugs, and that the sale and Purchase Agreement was only a cover up for the drug transactions. [105] Learned Counsel brings to the attention of this Court, that although the Land Purchase Agreement was signed on the 7thAugust 2019, it has not yet been registered, and that there are no ongoing communication between the 3rd Respondent and the purchasers, or their Lawyers regarding this transaction. Based on those facts, it is the Applicant's submission, that the )rd Respondent has not registered the Land Purchase Agreement because he knows that the same was a cover up for the barter trading, and he didn't want the transaction to be traced back to him or the purchasers. Learned Counsel takes issue with paragraph 5 of the 3rd Respondent's affidavit by which he claims that the purchasers (the pt and 2nd Respondents) still owe him SCR 175,000.00. The Applicant contends, that this is the second failure on the part of the yd Respondent to enforce the Land Purchase Agreement, and that, instead, he proceeded to make payment for the subdivision of parcel S2254 on the 9th Novem ber 2019. [106] It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the yd Respondent is aware that vehicle S23423 has been auctioned and sold and yet he has not enforced the agreement. It is, therefore, the submission of the Applicant, that the 3rd Respondent has decided not to enforce the Land Purchase Agreement because he knows very well that it was honoured as part of a barter trading, and that the 15t and 2nd Respondents are the beneficial owners of the property. [107] As against the 4th Respondent, learned Counsel for the Applicant refers the Court to the 4th Respondent's claim that motor vehicleS23423 belongs to him. Based on Supt Prinsloo's evidence, it is noted by the Applicant, that when the said vehicle was seized and auctioned, the 3rd Respondent did not contact the FCrU. It was only the l" Respondent who complained about it. It is therefore submitted by the Applicant, that the only explanation for this is the fact that the 4th Respondent knows that he is not the beneficial owner of the said vehicle. Learned Counsel takes issue with the 3rd Respondent's claims that the said vehicle was handed over to him on the 7th August 2019 at the 2nd Respondent's place, stating, that at paragraph 3 and 4 of the 4~hRespondent's affidavit, he claims that he is the owner of the said vehicle, and that at all material times the said vehicle was hired to a third party. It is submitted by the Applicant, that the 4th Respondent is only a cover up for the real beneficial owners of the vehicle who are the Ist and 2nd Respondents, and that the 411~ Respondent is aware of the barter trading between the other Respondents. As per learned Counsel's submission, this is corroborated by the fact that the 4thRespondent is well known to the ex- ANB. [108] On the law, it is the submission of learned Counsel, that all that the Court ought to do for the grant of the order being sought for, is to satisfy itself on account of the evidence laid before it, which is the basis of Supt Prinsloo's beliefs, that "there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the specified property constitutes directly or indirectly, benefits from criminal conduct, or was acquired in whole or in part with or in connection with property that is directly or indirectly benefit from criminal conduct ''. Learned Counsel submits, that the Applicant must adduce prima facie evidence against the Respondents as to its belief, then the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that the properties seized were not obtained from illegitimate sources. Learned Counsel cites the case of Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd & Ors (MC 95/2016) [2018] SCSC 564 (19 June 2018) which made references to previous cases such as FI U v Mares [20 II] SCR 405, Financial Intelligence Unit v Cyber Space Ltd 2013, SCR 97, spelling out the approach to be employed by the Court in interpreting the provisions of POCCCA. It is the submission of learned Counsel, that prima facie evidence has been laid before this Court against all the Respondents in this case, who unfortunately, their respective affidavit evidence, coupled with their supporting documents, fails to show that the specified properties are derived from legitimate sources. THE RELEVANT LA W TO BE APPLIED FOR THE DETERMINATION. This application is made under Section 4 of POCCCA. The relevant part reads; "(1) where an inter parte application to Court, in that behalfby the Applicant, it appears to the Court, on evidence, including evidence admissible by virtue of Section 9, tendered by the Applicant, that; (a) a person is in possession or control of (i) specified property and that the property constitutes, directly or indirectly, benefitfrom criminal conduct, or (ii) Specified property that was acquire in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly, constitutes benefit from criminal conduct, and (b) the value of the property or the value of the property referred to in sub-paragraph (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) is not less that SCR 50,000. The Court shall make an interlocutory order prohibiting the person specified in the order or any other person having notice of the making of the orderfrom disposing of or otherwise dealing with the whole or, any part of the property, or diminishing its value, unless, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court on evidence tendered by the Respondent, or any other person, that; (ii) the particular property does not constitute, directly or indirectly, benefit from criminal conduct, and was 110tacquired, in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly, constitutes benefitfrom criminal conduct, or (iii) the total value of all the property to 'which the order would relate is less than SCR 50.000.00 Provided that the Court shall not make the order if it is satisfied that there would be a risk of injustice to any person (the onus of establishing which shall be on that person), and the Court shall not decline to make the order in whole or in part to the extent that there appears to be knowledge or negligence of the person seeking to establish in justice, as to whether the property was as described in Subsection (1) (a) when becoming involved with the property". [109] For what is meant by "benefit from criminal conduct ", one has to have regard to Section 2 of POCCCA which reads, "benefitfrom criminal conduct means any property obtained or received at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by, or as a result of, or in connection with the commission of criminal conduct". [110] Section 9 of POCCA spells out evidence that is admissible for an interlocutory order under Section 4( 1) (Supra) in that it states that; "where the Director or Deputy Director states in proceeding under Section 3 or 4 on affidavit or if the Court so permits or directs, in oral evidence, that he believes, that,' (a) the respondent is in possession or controlled of specific property and that the property constitutes, directly or indirectly, benefit fitfrom criminal conduct, (b) the Respondent is in possession or control of specific property and that the property was acquired, in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly constitutes benefit from criminal conduct, and (c) the value of the property or as the case may be the total value of the property referred to in both paragraphs (a) and (b) is not less that R50, 000, then, if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief aforesaid, the statement shall be evidence of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or in paragraph (b) or in both paragraphs (a) and (b), as may be appropriate, and of the value of the property. (2) The applicant shall not make an application under Section 3 or 4 or submit evidence of his beliefdescribe in this Section, except ajier reasonable enquiries and investigations, and on the basis of credible and reliable information that he has reasonable grounds' for suspecting,' (a) the Respondent is in possession or controlled of .specified properly and that the property constitutes directly or indirectly, benefit of criminal conduct, or (b) the Respondent is in possession or control of specified property and that the property was acquired, in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly, constitutes benefitfrom criminal conduct, and that the vaLue of the property or referred to in subsection (1) (a) and (b) is not less than R50, 000. [111] Case law authorities, including FlU v Mares (Supra) FlU v Sentry (Supra) and Financial Intelligence Unit v Cyber Space (Supra) all of which are cited by learned Counsel for the Applicant in her written submissions, offer guidance to this Court as to how the provisions quoted in the preceding paragraphs above should be interpreted by the Court, in stating; I. "that once the applicant provides the Court with prima facie evidence, that is, reasonable grounds for his belief in compliance with Section 9(1) in terms of his application under Section 4(1) of POCCA, the evidential burden shifts to the Respondent to show 011the balance of probability that the property is not the proceeds of crime" .... (see Mares Supra) 2. " ..... All that is necessary is "a reasonable belief' that the property has been obtained or derived fr0111criminal conduct by the designated officer of the FlU That belief pertains to the designated officer and hence involves a subjective element. It is therefore only prima facie evidence or belief evidence. No criminal offence need be proved, non means real be shown ..... If the FlU relies on belief evidence under Section 9 the Court has to examine the grounds for the belief and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief it should grant the order. There are appropriate and serious protections for the Respondents as at different stages they are permitted to adduce evidence to show to the Court that the property does not constitute benefit ji'0111 criminal conduct. Their burden in this endeavour is that "on a balance of probabilities ". In other words, once the Applicant establishes his belief that the property is the proceed') of crime, the burden shifts (0 the Respondent 10 show that it is not. Hence, unless the Court doubts the beliefofthe officer of the FlU which is reasonably made he cannot refuse the order (see Sentry Supra) DISCUSSION OF TI-IE FACTS AS TRANSPIRED IN EVIDENCE [I 12] 1 have given due consideration to the affidavit evidence of Supt Prinsloo and his oral evidence that subjected him to cross examination by the ]SI, 2nd and 3rd Respondents. I have taken note that the Respondents did file an affidavit in reply but opted not to give oral evidence that would have subjected them to cross-examination. It is the belief of Supt Prinsloo, that the specified property in question are derived from criminal conduct and that the criminal conduct is the predicate offence of drugs trafficking. [113] I have carefully considered the basis of the Applicant's belief as expounded through the evidence ofSupt Prinsloo outlined above and correctly summarised by learned Counsel for the Applicant at Paragraph 7, 1- XlII of her submission replicated at paragraph 20 of this order. I am unable to discern any evidence from the Respondents' affidavit that would have enabled them to discharge their burden of proving that the specified properties were not acquired through criminal conduct, but rather, that they were obtained from legitimate sources. In fact, I have to confess that; did encounter great difficulties deciphering the essence of the 1st and 2nd Respondents' affidavit which were meant to be an affidavit in reply to the Applicant's affidavit rebutting the averments made therein. [114] The I" and 2nd Respondents' affidavit in terms of Section 170 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure are not only short of the statutory and case law legal requirements (see Union Estate Management (Proprietary) limited v Herbert Mittel' Meyer [1979] SLR 140) but also, short of averments rebutting the averments ofSupt Prinsloo pertaining to his belief evidence. lnterestingly, Rule 6 of the POCCCA Rule is instructive on the requirements and standard that is expected of an Applicant or a Respondent in respect of legal proceedings under POCCCA. Rule 6 is couched in the following terms; "(1) The deponent of an affidavit shalf only aver as tofacts within his or her personal knowledge. (2) An affidavit shall contain sufficient specific averments verifying the grounds on which an application is made or opposed to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the matter in accordance with the Act ". [115] Furthermore, Rules 6(3) and 6(4) of POCCC A governs documentary evidence which either the Applicant or the Respondent, seeks to produce before the Court in respect of an application of this nature. As per the rules; "(3) All documents relied on in an affidavit shall be exhibited to the affidavit. (4) The original of any document sought to be relied on in an affidavit shall be exhibited unless the Court accepts any explanation averred as to its non-production, in which case a notarise or otherwise duly authorized or certified copy shall be exhibited". Interestingly, neither of the Respondents tendered documentary evidence to rebut the affidavit evidence of Supt Prinsloo that led to his belief. It is therefore, not clear, whether that is because they are unaware that once the belief evidence is made out, the burden of proof shifts to them to show that property is not from proceeds of crime. [116] This is a Section 4 application under POCCCA supported by an affidavit for an interlocutory order that is subject to be set aside, ifmade, if only the Respondents can show that the property is not benefit from criminal conduct. On account of the evidence of Supt Prinsloo, the Applicant believes, that these funds and other specified property are proceeds of drugs trafficking. It was therefore incumbent of the Respondents, in rebuttal of Supt Prinsloo's belief evidence, to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the funds and the other specified property arc not proceeds of crime. They have all failed to do so. (see Mares supra, see Sentry supra, and Cyber Space Limited supra) [117] In the final analysis, therefore, having carefully considered the application and the pleadings therein, as well as the unchallenged belief evidence of Supt Prinsloo, I a111 satisfied, that there are reasonable ground to suspect that the specified property in the annexed to this order constitute directly or indirectly benefit from criminal conduct, or was acquired in whole or in part with or in connection with property that is directly, or indirectly, constitute benefit of criminal conduct. F1NAL DETERMINAT10N [118] For the reason of my findings which have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this order, I am persuaded, that this application does have merits, and as a consequence thereof, Ido make the following orders, 1. Imake an interlocutory order in accordance with Section 4 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, prohibiting the Respondents or any other person having notice of the making of the order from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the whole or any part of the specified properties or dealing with or diminishing in the value of the specified properties as appended in the table annexed to this order. 2. [ make an order pursuant to Section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, appointing Supt Hein Prinsloo as Receiver of all or part of the specified properties, to hold, to manage, to keep possession of or otherwise deal with any other property in respect of which he is appointed in accordance with the Court's directions or until further order of this Court. r order that the Respondents be notified of this order by service on them a copy of the 3. same. 4. I make an order pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008 as amended, providing for notice of such order to be served on the Chief Executive Officer of the Seychelles Licensing Authority being a public officer who is required to keep and maintain public records relating to the vehicles in question, in this case, the vehicles as set out in the table appended to this order, not to effect any transfer or change of ownershi p with respect of these veh icles, and 5. I also make an order pursuant to Section 11(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008, as amended, providing for notice of any such order to be served on the Registrar General in her capacity as the Land Registrar who is a public officer who is required to maintain public records relating to the specific properties, in this case the properties that are set out in the table appended to this order, not to effect any transfer or change of ownersh ip with respect to the said property [119] It is annexed to this order a table of the specified properties subject to the order. TABLE ITEMS DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED VALUE S23423 SCR 240,000.00 3 5 7 TOTAL Wine Red coloured I-lYUNDAI GRAND i1° S2207 SCR 310,000.00 Blue coloured SUZUKI SWIFT S1936 Black coloured TOYOTA CHR S4268 Twilight Blue HYUNDAI GRAND no S13370 being subdivision of parcel S2254 comprising of 615 sqm of land both situated in Cascade Mahe SCR 545,000.00 SCR 240,000.00 SCR 500,000.00 Planning Hull boat named SCR 740,000.00 Rebecca I0.9m length overall (LOA) With a 2.90m beam and O. SOmdraft holding twin Suzuki 300HP petroleum engines with various fittings and accessories. 9390 Euros SCR 199,819.2 SCR 2,034,819.2 I I I , i I I I I I •__..~-._dated and delivered at lie du Port on 14th July 2023. 54