High Court Anti-Corruption will rule on 20th January whether the property of businessman Joseph Wanjohi, his wife and his two companies are proceeds of crime.
This is after the hearing of the case by Justice Mumbi Ngugi came to an end.
The then Justice Hedwig Ong’undi had issued orders barring Wanjohi, Jane Wambui Wanjiru, Sidjoe Manufacturers and suppliers and Marudiono zone Limited from transferring, transacting, withdrawing, using and other dealing in respect of their funds held at Barclays Bank Muthaiga and Barclay’s Bank Moi Avenue.
The court had further ordered the businessman to surrender his two luxury cars to the Director of Criminal Investigation George Kinoti within seven days failure to which they be seized and detained.
Wanjohi was further ordered not to transfer his cars (Range Rover KBU 950W and Mercedes Benz KCD 299H) both registered under his name.
Investigations by Asset Recovery Agency revealed that the the couple’s accounts were holding a total of Sh 10,589,069.9 million suspected to be proceeds of crime and believed to have been obtained from illegitimate trade of wildlife trophies and narcotic drugs.
“The two engaged the services of mules who acquire, convey, sell and distribute the narcotic drugs and wildlife trophies for and on their behalf within and outside Kenya,” the agency submitted.
ARA argues that the two laundered the benefits of the narcotic drugs and wildlife trophies delivered to them by investing the same in the properties and assets identified with an intent of concealing, disguising and hiding the source of the funds used to acquire the assets in contrary to the provisions of the proceeds of crime and money laundering Act, 2009.
It was submitted that the benefit derived from this illegal trade of narcotic drugs and wildlife trophies were subsequently delivered to them by way of physical cash and deposits into their identified bank accounts by their agents , associate and conduit entities so to conceal, hide and disguise the source of the funds deposited.
The agency added that an analysis of the statements recorded by the two does not logically explain the source of the assets and funds in the issue.
The couple reiterated the application saying their business has stalled as a consequence of the frozen accounts thus jeopardizing their business transactions.
They further contended that the preservation orders obtained against the application was open ended without a time frame within which investigations were to be conducted thus jeopardising their business.
They also claimed that majority of their assets preserved were acquired before the year 2009 to 2018 the period alleged that they had received money from illegal activities.
Regarding the drinks seized from their home, the applicants averred that they have been since been returned to them as the same constitute genuine import business.
Touching on motor vehicle vehicle KBU 940W, the applicants stated that the property does not exist as it was involved in a road accident and same marked as a write off.
