By FAUSTINE KAPAMA-Judiciary
THE High Court’s Corruption and Economic Crime Division
has declared as tainted four properties owned by a couple, Margareth Gonzaga and
Alloycious Gonzaga, which are situated in Dar es Salaam.
Judge Elinaza
Luvanda ordered the forfeiture of the properties in question to the Government
of the United Republic of Tanzania after granting an application lodged by the
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The spotted properties
include Plot No. 1378, Block "E" Tegeta with certificate of title No.
41275 and three Plots with No 176, 191 and 14, Block "B" Aman Gomvu with
certificate of title No. 138598; No. 132797 and certificate of title No. 138597,
respectively.
“(Their) acquisition was tainted by illegality and
fraud, example loan agreements being converted into sale agreement and transfer
deed,” the judge ruled.
According to him, it was evidenced by Betty Mwafyuma
in a statement that she guaranteed her cousin Rose Gibonge and mortgaged her
landed property on Plot No. 1378 Block E to Ms Superior Financing Solution Ltd
(SFS), where a mortgage was converted into a sale agreement coupled by transfer
deed.
Judge Luvanda, however, ruled against the DPP on properties
on Plot No. 199, Block "D" Tegeta with certificate of title No.
121302 and Plot No. 200, Block "D" Tegeta with certificate of title
No. 39021, saying they were not amenable to forfeiture order.
“Because of concession that they were acquired the
way back in 1993; no solid foundation was laid to connect its acquisition with
the alleged wicked deeds of Ms SFS, including tax evasion, forgery and carrying
on lending business without license; banks accounts differ materially,” he said.
During hearing of the application, the couple had
opposed to the orders sought and presented two grounds of objections to the
effect that the application was incompetent for want of conviction of the wife
of money laundering and any predicate offence against her.
In his ruling, however, the judge dismissed all the
objections raised, ruling that the wife was taken to have been convicted of the
offence of money laundering contrary to section 12(d) and 13(a) of the
Anti-Money Laundering Act No. 12 of 2006.
According to him, his verdict was premised on the
law governing deemed conviction, in particular section 4(l) (c ) of Cap 256,
which states that a person shall be taken to be convicted of an offence if she
or he absconds in connection with the offence.
The judge noted that a charge was laid against the wife,
warrant of arrest was issued against her, substituted service was done, but she
did not show up and six months expired counting from the date of issuance of
warrant and service.
“Instead the (wife was) operating or issuing
directives remotely on how to pursue the application. Therefore, I rule that
all the conditions for deemed conviction were met to a letter. In the
circumstances a deemed conviction against (Margreth) is settled and deserving,”
he ruled.
The judge concluded that the argument by the husband
that his wife has not been convicted for any predicate offence or money
laundering was untenable as all conditions for a deemed conviction were taken
on board.
It was alleged that Ms SFS illegally operated
lending business without obtaining a valid license from the Ministry of
Industry, Trade and Investment and its proceeds (including tax evasion) were
deposited in a bank account held at CRDB maintained by the couple.
Between June 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016 a total of 4,214,736,248/-
was deposited into such account; Ms SFS operated its business by cash system to
avoid detection by regulatory authorities including Tanzania Revenue Authority
(TRA) and Bank of Tanzania (BoT).
The wife used to receive money generated from
criminal activities carried out by Ms SFS, including collecting loans from
individual borrowed from Ms SFS.
It was further alleged that the husband and other
shareholders of Ms SFS made false documents and forged returns of income and Ms
SFS evaded tax amounting 2,983,310,039/-.
To conceal the illicit origin of properties, the wife
allegedly laundered the proceeds of serious offences, namely tax evasion,
forgery and carrying on ending business without licence by acquiring in her
name the said properties, which were the subject for forfeiture orders.
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni