A 2017 parish court ruling which led to the forfeiture of only US$36,000 of a total US$45,366 ($6.9 mil) seized from a Jamaican woman in 2016 being handed over to the Crown was last month struck out by the Appeal Court following a successful challenge by the detective involved in the matter.

The appellant, a detective sergeant attached to the Counter Terrorism and Organized Crime Investigations Branch of the constabulary, had sought to challenge the orders of the parish court judge who at the time had granted his application for the forfeiture of the US$36,000 with all interest accrued to the Crown seize pursuant to Section 79 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). However, his application for the forfeiture of US$9,366, which was also seized from the woman, was denied by the parish court judge who ordered that that sum with all interest accrued should be released to the self-confessed “office attendant”.

The detective, dissatisfied with the decision of the judge, challenged the orders.

The appeal court, which heard the matter on two dates between June 2022 and July 2023 after considering an application to adduce fresh evidence, set aside the parish court judge’s orders in relation to the release of the US$9,366 with interest to the woman and instead ruled that the cash should also be turned over to the Crown.

According to details presented to the court, the detective was on duty in November of 2016 at the Norman Manley International Airport in Jamaica when the female arrived. Acting on information, he approached her and inquired, among other things, about how many pieces of luggage she was travelling with and whether the entire luggage belonged to her. She told the cop that one piece belonged to her and the other to her sister’s boyfriend whom she knew only as “Rohan”. Asked whether she was travelling with cash she said US$9,000 in her handbag. However, when the luggage was searched in her presence the bag said to belong to “Rohan” contained four blue bottles (two marked “Recovery Shampoo” and the other two marked “Recovery Conditioner”) which when scanned, emptied and searched were found to be concealing Ziploc bags containing cylindrical plastic parcels wrapped in carbon paper and secured with elastic bands. A total US$36,000 was recovered from the four bottles. A search of her handbag revealed US$9,366.

Cumulatively, the monies recovered from the luggage and handbag amounted to US$45,366 and were consequently detained.

The woman in a statement to the cops maintained that she was not aware of the cash found in the luggage she received from Rohan and that she had received that luggage the day before she travelled and was told that it contained items for his brother and niece. She said she was instructed to hand over the luggage to someone by the name of “Tee” who would meet her at the airport.

Accounting for the cash found in her handbag, she said she had resigned from her part-time job as a supervisor at a nursing home in August 2016, and received US$6,500 as the balance of her retirement account (which she referred to as her 401K retirement fund). This, she said, was transferred to her chequing account at a credit union in the USA. She claimed she obtained an additional US$3,650, which represented half of her “partner draw”. The woman said it was her intention to “top-up” her husband’s account and open a United States currency bank account at a financial institution here.

The cop, however, maintained in his evidence that given the circumstances under which she sought to transport the cash, the significant sum, her failure to duly declare the sum she was travelling with, and the lack of documentary evidence to support her explanations, it was his belief that the cash “was obtained from unlawful conduct or intended for use in unlawful conduct”. He argued further on the grounds of the appeal that the parish court judge had erred in deciding that the evidence before the court was insufficient to prove that the cash seized from the handbag was not recoverable property.

The judges of the appeal in giving the reasons for their decision pointed out among other things that “the incomplete and useless information given by the respondent — who was not present in court for the proceedings at any time and did not hire a lawyer to represent her — could be viewed as a deliberate attempt on her part to obfuscate the source of, what could safely be considered, her ill-gotten cash”.

Furthermore the court said, “the overall conduct exhibited by the respondent gave rise to the inference that, on a balance of probabilities, she was not being truthful about the source and intended use of the seized cash”. In addition, it said given the circumstances under which the cash in the handbag was seized, as well as her apparent lack of interest in its return and the tacit admission that she had previously lied about its source and intended use, “it can be inferred that the sum of US$9,366 was obtained directly or indirectly by or in return for or in connection with some unidentified unlawful conduct”.

“It could, therefore, be properly regarded as recoverable property,” the Appeal Court said.

The judges of the Appeal in underscoring that “this court does not lightly disturb a trial judge’s findings of fact”, said although the parish court judge had appreciated the relevant law as it concerns recoverable property under POCA, “she did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the circumstances of the finding of the money required the respondent to provide evidence to support her assertions about the source of the US$9,366”.

“She having failed to do so, the judge should have found that that money was recoverable property. Furthermore, the fresh evidence led before this court strengthened the appellant’s position,” the Appeal Court said while adding that the judge “was plainly wrong to have ignored the evidence led by the appellant of the substituted service of the documents relating to the court proceedings”.

“By proceeding to hear the claim in the absence of the respondent or counsel appearing on her behalf, the learned judge of the parish court tacitly accepted that the respondent was satisfactorily notified of the court proceedings. Her subsequent findings and expressions of doubt as to service were, therefore, irrational,” it said.