Full Court affirms SOCU’s authority to institute money-laundering cases

The Full Court on Thursday ruled that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) has sufficient legal capacity to institute and maintain legal proceedings under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act (AMLCFT Act), Cap. 10:11.
In a unanimous judgement, Justices Nigel Niles and Zamilla Ally-Seepaul set aside a High Court ruling that had found SOCU lacked the legal standing to bring proceedings in its own name.
The decision arose from an appeal filed by SOCU on June 17, 2025 against a ruling by High Court Judge Peter Hugh, delivered on May 27, 2025. In that ruling, Justice Hugh struck out SOCU’s application to restrain and detain a quantity of gold, foreign currency and Guyanese dollars alleged to be the proceeds of money laundering. The properties are linked to Sebastiao Moura and Gago Gold Inc.
Moura, a Brazilian national with gold mining operations in Guyana, is charged with five counts of money laundering under section 3(1)(c) of the AMLCFT Act. The related criminal proceedings are ongoing in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
Justice Hugh had ruled, among other things, that SOCU had no legal capacity to institute or maintain legal proceedings because it is not a body corporate within the meaning of the Companies Act, and that the AMLCFT Act did not expressly confer such status on the unit.
That ruling was challenged by the Attorney General, who argued before the Full Court that the issue of SOCU’s legal capacity was of substantial public importance. He submitted that the High Court decision effectively disabled SOCU from performing statutory functions expressly conferred on it by Parliament under the AMLCFT Act, including civil restraint and confiscation proceedings.
The Attorney General further argued that corporate legal capacity under the Companies Act was irrelevant to SOCU and that the AMLCFT Act itself expressly empowered the unit to institute and maintain legal proceedings. He cited several provisions of the Act in support of this position.
In its judgement, the Full Court agreed, holding that the question of SOCU’s legal standing bears directly on the effective administration of the country’s anti-money laundering regime and could recur in future proceedings if left unresolved.
The judges examined sections 2, 38, 39 and 109A of the AMLCFT Act, along with relevant case law, and concluded that the Act assigns SOCU functions that cannot be exercised without recourse to the courts. These include the restraining, seizing, detaining and forfeiting of property suspected to be tainted by criminal conduct.
The Court also held that sections 38 and 109A integrate SOCU directly into the framework for civil restraint and confiscation proceedings, and that it would be illogical to conclude that Parliament intended SOCU to have those powers while denying it the procedural means to exercise them.
Based on its analysis, the Full Court concluded that SOCU does possess sufficient legal capacity under the AMLCFT Act to institute and maintain proceedings for the civil restraint and confiscation of property, and that there is no requirement for the unit to have corporate personality to do so.
SOCU was represented in the appeal by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC MP, along with Shoshanna Lall, David Brathwaite, Thalia Thompson and Mohanie Sudama. The respondents were represented by Latchmie Rahamat and Naresh Poonai.