By GRACE CHAILE
THE Economic and Financial Crimes Court has discharged the restriction notices placed on Kalandanya Music Promotions (KMP) proprietor, Bwalya Kalandanya’s bank accounts by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC).
Judges Edward Musona, Pixie Yangailo and Kenneth Mulife in their judgement ordered that Mr Kalandanya is immediately allowed to access his bank accounts in issue by way of withdrawing or depositing money.
In this matter, Mr Kalandanya appealed against the decision by DEC to freeze his accounts which also includes bank accounts for Kalandanya Music Promotions and Nsochita general contractors and suppliers Limited, the second and third applicants.
DEC restricted account numbers 9130000289500 and 9130001352842 held at Stanbic Bank, Mulungushi branch and 0037503844501 with Ecobank Zambia limited, Lewanika Mall branch.
Mr. Kalandanya argued that the said notices had expired.
It was stated that since December 2021, KMP had been denied access to bank accounts and was told that the accounts had been frozen by the director general of the DEC through placement of third-party restriction notices.
He lamented that DEC’s decision to restrict the bank accounts had negatively impacted on his livelihood and struggling to survive and provide for his family.
The State however submitted that DEC acted within the confines of the law and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
It was also submitted that the amounts of money that was restricted at Stanbic bank were: K139, 350. 44, K54, 627. 34 and USD5, 036. 80 relating to bank accounts numbers 9130000289500, 91133000186205 and 9130001352842 respectively.
But the court in its judgement ruled that the notices of seizures having been taken out for purposes of facilitating investigations into an alleged crime of money laundering, placed the burden of proof ( in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary) , on the part alleging criminality in the manner the money in issue was acquired .
The court found that the State had failed to prove its allegations which triggered its decision to issue notices of seizures on the bank accounts.
“It is for this reason that it is attempting to shift the burden of proof on to the appellants. We thus find that the respondent has not discharged the burden placed on it by section 15 of the Prohibition and Prevention of Money laundering Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices if seizure have no basis for which they can be sustained. They therefore stand discharged,” Mr Justice Mulife said.
The Court stated that the seizure notices had a validity period of six months from the date it is placed on the property, but 16 months had elapsed.
It added that DEC should have applied for forfeiture of the money involved.
The court also stated that the notices were illegal on the basis that they were not served on the aggrieved parties.