PTX v BLH et ors

Overview

-        Court: Supreme Court of Grenada and the West Indies Associated States, High Court of Justice (Civil)

-        Claimant: PTX (State)

-        Respondents: BLH et al.

-        Charges:

-        (1) Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

-        (2) Aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute

-        (3) Attempted importation of cocaine

-        Claim: Recovery of property obtained via / in connection with alleged conduct (charges)

-        Applicable Law: Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act §§ 31K, 31BB (POCA)

-        Permits Attorney-General to recover for property obtained or used unlawfully

-        Standard of Proof: Balance of probabilities

-        Statute of Limitations: 12 years

Facts

-        BLH operated two waterfront businesses (QLD and MAF)

-        Grenadian law enforcement became suspicious of BLH’s potential involvement in drug trafficking in 2008

-        In April 2010, authorities inspected BLH’s vessel and discovered 250 kilograms of cocaine

-        BLH was indicted in the United States on three charges (see above) and appealed unsuccessfully

-        In 2016, PTX was granted a Property Freezing Order

-        In 2019, PTX initiated this action recover the property connected to BLH’s alleged conduct

Issues

-        Whether PTX has established entitlement to civil recovery of the respondents’ properties

-        (1) Whether the properties obtained or used in connection with unlawful conduct

-        (2) Whether the any of the properties were used or intended to be used for unlawful conduct

-        Whether BLH has sufficiently rebutted the allegations against him

Legal Reasoning

-        Unlawful Conduct

-        POCA defines “unlawful conduct” as that which:

-        Occurs in Grenada and unlawful under Grenada’s criminal code; or

-        Occurs outside of Grenada and unlawful under the criminal law of the applicable country

-        PTX presented sufficiently “strong circumstantial evidence” against BLH (See R v. Solanki et al)

-        Repeated failure to notify immigration authorities of (suspicious) vessel movements

-        “Frequent, unexplained trips” throughout recognized drug trafficking route

-        Gap in documentation allowing for time to modify vessel to conceal drugs

-        Presence aboard vessel during inspection and discovery of concealed cocaine

-        Consistent financial irregularities and unexplained deposits

-        Properties’ Connection to Unlawful Conduct

-        PTX presented sufficient evidence properties were acquired by / connected to unlawful conduct

-        Unlawful Conduct

-        Lack of evidence of sustainable businesses (e.g., false accounting, irregularity)

-        Money laundering characteristics (e.g., absence of documentation, commingling)

-        Accounts used to conceal movement of funds related to drug trafficking

-        Acquisition of

-        Concerns re: scale and timing of property acquisitions (disproportionate to income)

-        Failure to provide acceptable rationale for acquisitions by business

-        Use of third-party accounts with lack of legitimate sources

-        Use of law firm trust account, early loan repayments, and distribution across accounts

-        Cash deposit patterns consistent with drug-related payments (e.g., small USD amounts)

Judgment

-        All properties are recoverable under the POCA (not barred by 12-year statute of limitations)