Conspiracy to embezzle insurers: Proceedings stayed for two accused

The Criminal Division of the Intermediate Court, having on the Bench Magistrate Azam Neerooa, has ordered last week that proceedings against accused Sheikhan E. Ally Syed Hossen and accused Parmesiven Kistnareddy be stayed permanently under the information of money laundering lodged by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). 

Both accused parties were sued for breach of the Financial Intelligence and Anti Money Laundering Act (FIAMLA) to which they pleaded not guilty. The gist of the case is as follows: One K. Ramoly requested Sheikhan E. Ally Syed Hossen to take part in a bogus accident involving several other vehicles whilst driving his car along new trunk road at the Caudan on 8 February 2005. After the accident, he went to Line Barracks police station where he admitted liability. He then reported the accident to Albatross Insurance Company following which the insurer paid him the sum of Rs 29,000 in his bank account. Parmesiven Kistnareddy admitted to the police that he had given his car to one Sooben who told him he needed the car so that he could do a “job” so as to get money from the insurance company as he was in financial problem. Sooben told him he would arrange a bogus accident involving the said car so that he could get some money. The accused agreed to give him his car. Parmesiven Kistnareddy was then informed that “the work has been done” and that he would have to report the accident to SICOM Insurance. He filled a claim form with the insurer. On 31 January 2006, he was paid Rs 85,000 by the insurance company. Some two days later, he withdrew almost the total sum of Rs 85,000 and remitted same to Sooben. During cross-examination, Ms Papain, Senior Investigator at ICAC, admitted that no charge whatsoever was put to either accused parties. She added that at the time she recorded the statement of Sheikhan E. Ally Syed Hossen, there was evidence that he had conspired to swindle insurance companies. No provisional charge was lodged against the latter. As regard Parmesiven Kistnareddy, the ICAC representative explained that the latter was requested by means of a letter dated 6 July 09 to call to ICAC for enquiry since the commission was investigating into a complaint. Ruling in favour of a stay of proceeding against both accused parties, Magistrate Neerooa cited various authorities, namely the ruling of the Supreme Court in the appeal case The State v Wasson [2008 SCJ 209] having regards to the abuse of process. “The power to stop a prosecution arises only when it is an abuse of the process of the Court. It may be an abuse of process if either (a) the prosecution have manipulated or misused the process of the Court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by law or to take unfair advantage of a technicality, or (b) on the balance of probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the preparation or conduct of his defence by delay on the part of the prosecution which is unjustifiable.” For the Magistrate there are substantial prejudice and disregard to both accused parties’ right to a fair trial under section 10 (2) of the Constitution in the present matter.