HSBC, MCB and SBM charged in Mauritius with money laundering offences from 20 years ago!!!

It has been reported [https://www.lemauricien.com/] in Mauritius that HSBC, MCB and SBM, will face a criminal trial for the alleged offense of LIMITATION OF PAYMENT IN CASH in violation of the provisions of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act ( FIAMLA).

Limitation of Payment in Cash charges were lodged as follows:-

• Two counts against HSBC,
• Eight counts against MCB and
• Six counts against SBM.

The three banks have pleaded not guilty.

This affair dates back around twenty years when the banks allegedly accepted deposits of more than Rs 350,000 in cash from a man named Stéphane Gérard Briand, a French national residing in Mauritius.

In 2019 Stéphane Gérard Briand, based in Mauritius, was found guilty of 16 charges of having made cash transactions above the limit authorized by the framework law against money laundering.

• Stéphane Gérard Briand was prosecuted for:-
• Having made 10 cash deposits totalling Rs 10.3 million to his savings accounts between JUNE 17, 2002 AND MAY 27, 2004 at
• The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and
• The Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB).

• Having accepted the total sum of Rs 8 million from the State Bank of Mauritius (SBM) between April 24, 2003 and May 27, 2004.
• The amounts of each transaction were above the limit of Rs 350,000.

HSBC

• Had filed a motion to request a halt to the trial, before being joined by the two other banks.
• They maintain that the indictment dates back to   2014, and relates to alleged offenses committed in 2002.
• They no longer have the necessary documents to defend themselves, and can no longer call on certain witnesses, including former employees.

But Magistrate Rangasamy

• Noted that it has not been put forward that these witnesses are unreachable or that they will not be able to come and testify in Court.
• Accepted the prosecution's proposition that if a bank had refused to disclose information at the time of the investigation, it cannot then take advantage of the fact that these documents were subsequently destroyed. The banks had also claimed that they had destroyed documents in accordance with section 33 of the Banking Act 2004.
• Held that this section does not impose an obligation to destroy a document after seven years, but rather to retain it for at least seven years. Furthermore, it was not specified precisely what documents or information are missing, and how they would have been necessary to enable the banks to prepare their defense. Ultimately, it will be up to the prosecution to prove all the elements of the offense under Section 5 of FIAMLA. Thus, the Court cannot anticipate the defense's approach even before the trial begins.
• Held that only after hearing the case as a whole can the Court critically assess the importance of the missing evidence.

ARGUMENTS AND DECSIONS ON THE DELAY

• The banks explained that this delay will cause them irreparable harm if the Court maintains this trial.
• Although the alleged offenses were committed between 2002 and 2004, the Independent Commission Against Corruption began its investigation following a complaint received in 2010, and it was not until 2015 that the case was lodged in court.
• The magistrate admitted that there were several delays in this case, but noted that there were certain  Special Circumstances , including the complexity of the investigation, involving several witnesses and a mass of documents.
• The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had decided to put this matter on hold pending a decision by the Privy Council on a point of law in Beezadhur v. ICAC , which was decisive for the present case.
• https://www.icac.mu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ICAC-v-S-G-BRIAND.pdf
• There was also the establishment of the Financial Crimes Division (FCD) within the Intermediate Court to hear such cases expeditiously. The magistrate was thus not satisfied that a Permanent Stay of Proceedings , an exceptional remedy, was justified in the present case.
• For all these reasons, Magistrate Rangasamy concluded that HSBC, MCB and SBM will benefit from a fair trial. He therefore rejected the motion for abuse of process.

Stéphane Gérard Briand

• In 2019 The French national, Stéphane Gérard Briand, based in Mauritius, was found guilty of 16 charges of having made cash transactions above the limit authorized by the framework law against money laundering.
• https://defimedia.info/paiement-excedentaire-stephane-gerard-briand-juge-coupable
• The verdict fell on Thursday June 27, 2019 in the intermediate court for the businessman, Stéphane Gérard Briand.
• This company director, in his fifties, and residing in Morcellement Gambier, in Le Morne, was found guilty by the intermediate court. This, at the end of a lawsuit brought against him by the Independent Commission against Corruption (Icac) for transactions exceeding the limit then authorized by the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA).
• Stéphane Gérard Briand was prosecuted for
• Having made 10 cash deposits totaling Rs 10.3 million to his savings accounts  between June 17, 2002 and May 27, 2004 at
• The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and
• The Mauritius Commercial Bank (MCB).
• Having accepted the total sum of Rs 8 million from the State Bank of Mauritius (SBM) between April 24, 2003 and May 27, 2004.
• The amounts of each transaction were above the limit of Rs 350,000.
• Magistrate Bibi Razia Jannoo-Jaunbocus ruled that the accused could not establish that the transactions were exempt from the application of the Cash Transactions Act.
• This even though it has not been established that the money is of dubious origin. Icac was represented by Me Preesha Bissoonauthsing.
• In his version of the facts, Stéphane Gérard Briand relates that he arrived in Mauritius in 1992 with his parents, to invest there.
• He created their first company with his father: Briand Ebony and Rosewood Co Ltd. Company which is in the import and export of wood. In 2001, the company was dissolved and he invested all the money in the company Briand Ebony Co Ltd. Company which had an account at the Banque des Mascareignes.
• On July 15, 2004, he opened three different accounts at SBM. Previously, the company had an account at MCB to meet local expenses. In 2007, he obtained Mauritian citizenship and established various other companies.
• Clean money- He declared that he received no salary as a director, but only dividends as a shareholder. This by bank transfer. He says he is the only heir to the family fortune, found in Switzerland. His parents sold furs. They contributed 100,000 euros in 1992 for the initial investment. All payments are made by bank transfer. He also often purchased land at the Master's Court.
• He explained that the money that was transferred to SBM came either from his own account or from his mother's account in Switzerland. He then withdrew the money in cash and deposited it into his own account at MCB. He did this for three reasons: (i) the SBM gave him a better rate than the MCB; (ii) he did not want to pay bank charges for the transfer to MCB and (iii) a desk check would have taken three days to clear and he was not going to receive interest for those three days. He added “that none of the banks then told him that he could not carry out a cash transaction exceeding Rs 350,000”.
• His lawyer, Subash Lallah Senior Counsel, called Ashraf Ramtoolah, an accountant at SGG Global Administrators (Mauritius) Ltd, to the stand. He produced an account statement from Briand Ebony & Co Ltd concerning profits from 2002 to 2013, for a total amount of approximately 3 million euros (Rs 121 million).

Source

https://www.lemauricien.com/le-mauricien/financial-crimes-division-sous-fiamla-hsbc-mcb-et-sbm-face-a-des-accusations-20-ans-apres/625264/

https://defimedia.info/paiement-excedentaire-stephane-gerard-briand-juge-coupable#google_vignette

https://www.icac.mu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ICAC-v-S-G-BRIAND.pdf