Chandra Dip’s Motion to Halt Money Laundering Case Rejected

In a 15-page ruling delivered On Wednesday January 23, Magistrate Abdool Raheem Tajoodeen of the Financial Crimes Division at the Intermediate Court addressed a motion filed by five defendants, including Chandra Prakashsing Dip, the son of former Police Commissioner Anil Kumar Dip. The defendants sought to halt the legal proceedings concerning an allegation of money laundering involving Rs 25 million, which is linked to a broader case of misappropriation involving Rs 80 million from Bramer Banking Corporation.

The defense team, which includes attorneys Mᵉˢ Shailesh Seebaruth and Imtihaz Mamoojee, argued that the case should be dismissed due to procedural abuses, citing the 13 years that have elapsed since the initiation of the case.

The defendants in this matter are Darmendra Mulloo, Chandra Prakashsing Dip, Sheik Mohammed Khadafi Jany, Muhammad Saif Ullah Maulaboksh, and Muhammad Irfaan Hausmuddy, with allegations dating back to events that occurred between January and August 2011.

In rejecting the defense’s motion, Magistrate Tajoodeen highlighted the testimony of Chief Inspector Seeruthun from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), who provided an affidavit detailing the investigation’s timeline, which began in 2011.

The magistrate noted, “The investigator explained the reasons for the delay in the inquiry and how the case came to light through a press article.

The investigation involved multiple financial transactions and is inherently complex, with numerous victims offering their accounts.”

Magistrate Tajoodeen emphasized that the victims of this fraud are entitled to the resolution of their case.

Although the court possessed the authority to suspend proceedings, he stated that such measures must be applied judiciously.

“The 225 charges are telling in themselves, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that everything has been at a standstill.

Considering the complexity of this case, we cannot conclude that there has been excessive delay.

It is true that 13 years and five months have passed since their arrest, but the court does not concur with the notion that this delay has caused harm to the defendants.

They have not provided any evidence to support claims of distress or stigmatization,” the magistrate concluded.

The case is set to continue on April 1, 4, and 9.

Source: l’Express