A family has lost four prime properties in Kilifi town and about Sh2 million in three bank accounts after a judge declared them as proceeds of crime.
Justice Patrick Otieno directed the parcels of land in Mtwapa, Kilifi county be transferred to Assets Recovery Agency (ARA). The judge further said the developments on the properties were proceeds of crime and liable for forfeiture to the government.
“Having found that the said assets are proceeds of crime, the spirit and object of the law in Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act is that none should be allowed to keep, enjoy and benefit from proceeds of crime,” said the judge.
The properties were linked to Swaleh Yusuf Ahmed who was arrested and charged with trafficking in heroin alongside his spouse Asma Abdalla Mohammed and his mother Jauria Yusuf. The court was informed that Swaleh and Jauria have since died.
One of the bank accounts that held Sh875,484 belonged to Ms Asma and she was also directed to forfeit the funds to the State.
Swaleh Yusuf Ahmed at the Mombasa Law Courts on January 24, 2019. He was found dead on March 17, 2024 in Kilifi.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
“In this matter where it is demonstrated that the assets here are proceeds from trafficking in narcotics, with known devastating effect on society, especially youth who get rendered zombies, the dictate is even more compelling,” said the judge.
The agency started investigating the family after the arrest of Swaleh and his spouse Asma and were charged before a Shanzu court in 2017.
The couple was charged together with two others with trafficking in drugs worth 110 million, which was recovered from the house of one of the mules, identified as Nuru Murshid Mahfudh.
According to the agency, Swaleh was a well-established drug trafficker in Mombasa and had devised the use of MPesa and bank accounts in the names of relatives and associates to launder the illegitimate money.
The court was told that he channeled the money into financial system by breaking up large sums into smaller bits by deposits into MPesa and the bank accounts.
At that time, Swaleh was aged between 20 and 23 years old yet his accounts transacted sums of money reasonably believed to be proceeds of heroin trafficking.
A nephew to Swaleh- Mbarak Abdallah Yusuf- opened a bank account at the age of 19 years and declared himself a car dealer.
Thereafter, the account received suspicious deposits totaling Sh3 million during the month of January 2014 alone.
ARA submitted that despite being in the alleged business and transacting over 3 million in one year, and having registered as a tax payer, Mbarak never filed any returns between 2015 and 2022.
The judge ruled that the trend was consistent with a proxy used by a king pin to receive illicit earning, launder same and use the money to acquire the kindred property.
“In totality, it is stressed that there is no evidence of legitimate business by the Respondents that would justify the several and substantial cash deposits, withdrawal and transfers and subsequently acquisition of assets in their names,” said the judge.
ARA submitted that there was reasonable grounds to believe that the property were unlawfully acquired from the illegitimate trade in narcotic drugs and that the bank accounts for were used as conduits of money laundering.
The court heard that an analysis of the bank accounts and Mpesa transactions showed that the deposits were made by about 100 individuals and various Mpesa agents.
Ms Jauria and Swaleh passed on while the case was pending, the court was told.
In an affidavit filed in court, Jauria confirmed that Swaleh was her son and that she was in the business of selling water and chicken.
She said she sold one of her property- inherited from parents for Sh1.8 million and purchased one of the properties in Mtwapa.
Asma contended that she was merely being blamed for having been charged together with Swaleh and Jauria was brought into the case for being Swaleh’s mother.
The judge noted that other family members named in the case were asked to defend the properties but chose to remain silent.
“The court thus finds that the right to answer was duly availed but the Respondents chose not to seize the same,” said the judge.
