NAIROBI, Kenya Jun 19 – The Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to anti-corruption and asset recovery agencies after dismissing an appeal seeking the forfeiture of nearly Sh20 million held in bank accounts belonging to a woman accused of laundering bribe proceeds allegedly received by her husband.

📻 Breaking It Down

The seven-judge bench upheld an earlier Court of Appeal decision and ruled that the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) failed to establish a sufficient connection between the funds and any criminal activity, a requirement for forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

The case revolved around Sh19.7 million held in bank accounts belonging to Pamela Aboo, whose husband, a former Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) declaration officer, had been suspected of receiving bribes from importers and clearing agents.

Investigators argued that the money deposited into Ms Aboo’s accounts constituted proceeds of corruption and that she had acted as a conduit through which illicit funds were concealed and laundered.

📌 What You Need to Know

The agencies pointed to what they described as suspicious banking patterns, including frequent cash deposits made in Mombasa and Embakasi, key centres for import and cargo clearance operations. They further argued that the deposits involved unusually large sums and that Ms Aboo had failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to support her claim that the money originated from legitimate business activities.

The Assets Recovery Agency had successfully obtained forfeiture orders in the High Court, which found that Ms Aboo had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the funds.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, holding that investigators had not demonstrated a direct nexus between the money and any criminal conduct.

Dissatisfied with the appellate court’s findings, EACC and ARA moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that civil forfeiture proceedings target property rather than individuals and therefore do not require proof of a specific crime or conviction.

The agencies maintained that once they demonstrated that the funds were suspicious and likely to have originated from unlawful conduct, the burden shifted to Ms Aboo to prove their legitimate source.

They warned that requiring investigators to establish a direct connection between property and a specific offence would undermine efforts to recover proceeds of corruption, money laundering and organised crime.

📰 Source: Capital FM Kenya