Court Drops Money Laundering Charge Against Sattar Hajee Abdoula

A Port Louis district court has struck out a provisional money laundering charge against Sattar Hajee Abdoula, finding that the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) had not established a sufficiently concrete link between the accused and the funds at the centre of the case. **The case in brief** The charge related to a sum of Rs 3,696,000 (approximately Rs 3.7 million) deposited into the bank account of Grant Thornton (Advisory Services) Ltd — also known as GTAS Ltd — held at AfrAsia Bank. Prosecutors argued that this payment represented, in whole or in part, the proceeds of a crime. The money was connected to a contract worth approximately Rs 8.5 million signed between GTAS Ltd and Air Mauritius Ltd on 19 March 2020. The first instalment of Rs 3,696,000 was transferred on 31 March 2020 — just twelve days after the contract was signed. **What the FCC alleged** The FCC, which is Mauritius's specialist agency tasked with investigating financial crimes including money laundering, corruption and asset recovery, raised several concerns about how the contract was awarded. According to evidence presented in court, the contract was not subjected to Air Mauritius's standard procurement procedures. It was not reviewed by the airline's relevant internal divisions, its legal department, or its board of directors. Prosecutors also pointed to Sattar Hajee Abdoula's role within GTAS Ltd as part of their case. **Why the charge was struck out** The court ruled that, at this stage of proceedings, the evidence was insufficient to establish a clear personal link between Sattar Hajee Abdoula as an individual and the funds deposited into the company's account. The decision raises a fundamental legal question: did the FCC adequately distinguish between the actions and liabilities of GTAS Ltd as a corporate entity and those of its director as an individual? In Mauritian law — as in most jurisdictions — a company is a separate legal person from its directors and shareholders. To pursue a money laundering charge against a director personally, prosecutors generally need to show that the individual had knowledge of, control over, or direct involvement in the alleged criminal proceeds. **What this means** The striking out of a provisional charge does not mean the broader case is closed. The FCC may have the opportunity to gather additional evidence and refile. However, it is a significant procedural setback that signals the court was not satisfied with the standard of proof presented at this early stage. The case also comes in the broader context of scrutiny over Air Mauritius contracts during a turbulent period for the national carrier — the airline entered administration in April 2020, the same month the disputed payment was made. For observers of Mauritius's financial crime enforcement landscape, the ruling highlights the evidentiary burden the FCC must meet when pursuing individuals rather than the companies they lead. Source: ION News