scheme operated by two foreigners.
The foreigners,
according to the application for forfeiture orders, are Manon Elisabeth
Hubenthal, a resident of Greven in Germany and Frank Robert Ricketts,
who resides in Blackwats, in the United Kingdom.
Both are directors
and shareholders of IMS Marketing Tanzania Limited. The application has
been supported by two affidavits of State Attorney Estazia Wilson and
Investigator Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Fadhili, detailing
how the foreigners were involved in the crimes of conducting the pyramid
scheme and money laundering.
In the submissions
to support the application, DPP Biswalo Mganga, who was assisted by
Principal State Attorneys Shadrack Kimario and Christopher Msigwa told
Judge Elinaza Luvanda that the forfeiture order was necessary to prevent
offenders from benefiting from the proceeds of crimes.
According to the
prosecution, it was sad to note that several people, including
government officials and religious leaders, were involved in the pyramid
scheme and invested some millions of money to enrich themselves, but to
the detriment of the country's economy.
"You can imagine one religious leader took 100m/-offerings and sow such money in the pyramid scheme.
We believe that if
the forfeiture order is granted, these government and religious leaders
will stop from engaging in these dirty games. It will deter others from
committing similar crimes," the DPP said.
Expounding, the
prosecution asked the High Court to confiscate two bank accounts with a
total sum of $1,351,597.79 and another account with €5,377,306.56, both
held in the name of IMS Marketing Tanzania Limited at Bank of Africa
(BOA), Bank Limited.
Relying on any
other prayer for any other order the court could deem fit and just to
grant, the DPP also asked the Court to order BOA Bank Limited to pay
interests for the money for having remained in possession of such huge
money since January 19, 2018.
The judge is set to
deliver the ruling on April 3, 2020. It was submitted that on January
19, 2014, the two foreigners came to Tanzania and registered IMS
Marketing Tanzania Limited, a company which was given by Kinondoni
Municipal Council a business licence of operating marketing services
business.
The prosecution
submitted that neither the dealing in crypto currency nor collection of
funds from members of the public is among the purposes of the business
for which the company was registered as per the Memorandum and Articles
of Association.
On diverse dates,
the two foreigners opened the bank accounts after registering the
company, which it was established later that it had relations with IMS
International Marketing Services of Singapore.
Such a Singaporean
company, the prosecution further charged, had a close link and part of
Onecoin Limited, a company founded in April 2014 in Gibraltar and had
offices in Bulgaria, the United Arabs Emirates (UAE) and Hong Kong.
"IMS Marketing
Tanzania Limited, IMS International Marketing Services and Onecoin
Limited are operating a pyramid scheme that is a predicate offence of
money laundering," the prosecution submitted.
It was alleged
further that the operations of Onecoin Limited and subsidiary companies
in various jurisdictions had been stopped and their bank accounts frozen
for its complicity in money laundering offences arising from a scheme
that was the same as pyramid scheme.
Following such a
stoppage of operations, Onecoin Limited advertised on her Facebook
account and online website that members should pay their trade packages
and deposits through the bank accounts maintained at BOA Bank.
On different dates,
16,720,858,579/47 was received from three bank accounts. Such amount
comprises $1,351,597.79 in two USD accounts and another €5,377,306.56
the Euro account.
Considering such
evidence, the DPP filed an economic case against the two at the Kisutu
Resident Magistrates' Court in Dar es Salaam on three charges of
conspiracy to commit an offence, money laundering and unlawful operating
a pyramid scheme.
Since the accused were at large, the prosecution applied and obtained an arrest warrant against them.
The arrest warrant
was published, but they could not show up. It was at that point in time
when the DPP filed the application for forfeiture orders before the High
Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment