Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.

We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
MC 76 of 2020
Counsel for plantiff
Nissa Thompson

Government of Seychelles v Marie (MC 76 of 2020) [2020] SCSC 670 (17 September 2020);

Media neutral citation
[2020] SCSC 670
Govinden, J


This is an ex-parte application made under Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation Act 2008) as amended by Applicant of 2017. The Application seeks the following reliefs:-

  1. For an interim Order pursuant to Section 3 of the Proceeds of (Crime Civil Confiscation) Act 2008 as amended prohibiting the Respondent or any other persons specified in the order from disposing of or otherwise dealing with whole or any party of the property set out in Annexure A appended to the Notice of Motion.
  2. For an order providing for Notice of any such order to be given to the Respondents or any other person directed by the Court.  
  3. That upon the making of an order under Section under 2 above, that Superintendent Hein Prinsloo, or such other persons as this Court, shall direct be appointed as Receiver over all or part of the said property to manage, keep possession or disposed of or otherwise deal with any other property in respect of which he is appointed in accordance with the Court direction pursuant Section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008 as amended.
  4. Such further or other Orders as the Court shall deem fit just and proper in all circumstances of the case.
  1. I have considered the details contained in the affidavit of Superintendent Hein Prinsloo who is attached to the Financial Crime Investigating Unit (hereinafter referred to as the FCIU in support of this Application.  It is clear that the investigating officers involved in this case have conducted a detailed thorough and comprehensive investigation in respect of the specified property.
  2. I am further satisfied on the information contained in the said Affidavit that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property set out in the Annexure A to the Application which is an amount of Euro 9390 amounting to SCR 197,190 which was in the control and possession of the Respondent and now in the control of the Applicant, constitute directly or indirectly benefit from criminal conduct.  I am further satisfied that the value of the impugned property is not less than Rs50,000/-
  3. I therefore make the following order:
  1. I allow this Application and I issue an interim order prohibiting the disposal of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of the specified property as set out in an Annexure A as referred above.
  2. Further, I appoint Superintendent Hein Prinsloo to be the Receiver of the said specified property and to hold the same in accordance with the provision of Section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act 2008.
  3. A copy of this Order is to be served by the Registrar of the Supreme Court upon the Respondent.

I order accordingly, I make no order as to cost.


Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 17 September 2020



Govinden  J