Lamborghini tax evasion case: GRA asks High Court to stay civil case until ruling on criminal charges

Citing the initiation of criminal proceedings based on subsequent evidence showing alleged falsification of an invoice and significantly understated taxes, the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) has petitioned the High Court to stay the upcoming September 15 ruling in the civil judicial review case filed by US-sanctioned businessman Azruddin Mohamed, who is challenging tax obligations on a Lamborghini he imported in December 2020.
In its Notice of Application (NOA), the GRA asked Justice Gino Persaud that the Application be deemed fit for urgent and expedited hearing, and the proceedings in the judicial review “be stayed and that there be no determination of the issues” given, “pending the hearing and determination of the criminal charges” against Mohamed, who has been charged under Section 218 (e) of the Customs Act, Chapter 82:01, for fraudulent evasion and false declarations.
“Criminal charges having been preferred against the applicant, the High Court ought to exercise its discretion to stay the hearing and determination of this claim for judicial review pending the hearing and determination of the said criminal charges because it would be neither appropriate nor prudent for the court to assume jurisdiction for a claim for judicial review in circumstances where criminal charges have been preferred against the claimant based on the same facts,” the application read.
The GRA argues that separate determinations of the same case in the High Court as well as the criminal court could compromise the credibility of the justice system.
“The issues as to whether he made a false declaration to the Revenue Authority in the declaration of the value of the vehicle on 7 December 2020 and whether he was knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion are at the core of the judicial review considerations, and will arise for determination in both courts, and there is a serious risk of inconsistent findings by the High Court and the criminal court, which apart from being undesirable, can bring the administration of justice into disrepute,” the GRA application said.

Criminal charges
The GRA had instituted criminal charges against Mohamed in May after the Authority had received official documentation from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) showing an invoice from International Speed Consulting Inc billed on October 7, 2020 for the payment of US$695,000 for the Lamborghini. The invoice was stamped as paid. The particulars of the Lamborghini identified in the invoice were the same as Mohamed’s Lamborghini.
The US$695,000 payment exceeds the US$75,300 value for the vehicle that Mohamed declared in his tax filings for the vehicle. However, it was not until May 13 that the GRA received the evidence.
“The applicant is obliged to deploy the arguments raised herein as part of his defence in the criminal courts. His contention that he purchased the Lamborghini Roadster SVJ for US$75,000 and paid the correct amount of duties in $48,968, 035.00 is obviously the crux of his defence. It will, therefore, be an abuse of process for the applicant to, in effect, litigate his criminal defence in this claim for judicial review,” the GRA contends.

Evidence
Based on the newly-uncovered evidence, the GRA issued a reassessment of the taxes and a demand letter for the payment of additional taxes owed.
The evidence of Mohamed’s tax evasion was not included in the judicial review since pleadings were closed with the filing of an Affidavit in Reply on April 25 to GRA’s Affidavit in Defence that was filed on April 8. Mohamed had filed for the judicial review on April 2.
While the GRA subsequently filed to have the evidence admitted as part of the judicial review as part of a “Further Affidavit of Defence”, Justice Persaud, however, struck out the documents. The GRA subsequently filed criminal charges on May 15.
“The fact and circumstances of this case are quite unique and exceptional and justifies the court declining to hear and determine this part of the claim for judicial review. This is not simply a case about alternative remedies, it is a case where criminal proceedings are now afoot in respect of the same subject matter. The issue is now, therefore, whether the court should and/or could entertain or continue to entertain a claim for judicial review filed by the applicant and rule on such a claim, in the face of pending criminal proceedings regarding the same subject matter. the respondents contend that this would be an abuse of the court’s process and hence the court ought to stay for the hearing and determination of this claim,” GRA said.

“Court has a discretion to exercise”
In the application, the GRA noted that while Section 9 of the Judicial Review Act 2010 is designed to allow the Court to entertain a claim for judicial review notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy to prevent an ouster of the court jurisdiction where there is an alternative remedy, it is not a mandate or instruction for the court to automatically assume jurisdiction in such cases. The court has a discretion to exercise,” the application said.
“Section 9 does not state that the court is not obliged to assume jurisdiction over a claim for judicial review where parallel proceedings exist… the court has a discretion to exercise.”
“The principles that guide the exercise of that discretion remain apposite and provides useful guidance to us to if and when it should entertain a claim for judicial review in a case with parallel criminal proceedings have commenced and the relief sought in the judicial review will have implications for the criminal trial,” it noted.
In response, Mohamed through his lawyer Siand Dhurjon in an “Affidavit in Answer” on September 9 argued that a stay of the proceedings would prejudice Mohamed’s right to be vindicated of the unlawful conduct.