Full Court rules that SOCU has legal capacity to institute legal actions in its own name

See full statement from the Attorney General’s Chambers: 

1. On Thursday, 18 December 2025, Full Court Judges, Justice Nigel Niles and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul, in a reasoned judgment, unanimously held that the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) possesses sufficient legal capacity to institute and maintain legal actions by virtue of the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, Cap. 10:11 (‘AMLCFT Act’).
2. On 17 June 2025, SOCU appealed a decision of Mr. Justice Peter Hugh, sitting in the High Court, delivered on 27 May 2025, who struck out an application by SOCU to restrain and detain a large quantity of gold, foreign currency and Guyanese dollars – properties of Sebastiao Moura and Gago Gold Inc., alleged to be tainted by money-laundering and being the proceeds of crime. Sebastiao Moura, a Brazilian national with gold mining operations in Guyana, is charged with five (5) counts of money laundering in contravention of section 3(1)(c) of the AMLCFT Act. The trial of the charges, to which the properties are inextricably and directly linked, are ongoing in the Georgetown Magistrates Court.
3. In dismissing SOCU’s application for the detention and restraint orders, Mr. Justice Peter Hugh ruled inter alia, that SOCU has no legal capacity to institute or maintain legal proceedings as it is not a body corporate within the meaning of the Companies Act, and that no provision of the AMLCFT Act expressly conferred upon it such status.
4. This ruling of Mr. Justice Hugh was set aside by the Full Court, following written and oral arguments by the parties.
5. The Honourable Attorney General submitted to the Full Court that the issue of SOCU’s legal capacity to institute legal proceedings in its own name was of substantial importance, since SOCU is, by virtue of Justice Peter Hugh’s ruling, effectively disabled from performing critical statutory functions expressly conferred upon it by Parliament under the AMLCFT Act.
6. The Honourable Attorney General further submitted that should the ruling of the Learned Trial Judge stand, SOCU would be crippled in the execution of its mandate under the Act and that therefore, the issue warrants authoritative determination by the Full Court. He cited several provisions of the AMLCFT Act that expressly confer upon SOCU the legal capacity to institute and maintain legal proceedings, and argued that the issue of corporate legal capacity contemplated and provided for under the Companies Act is wholly irrelevant to SOCU.
7. The Full Court agreed with the Attorney General’s submissions, pronouncing that the question of SOCU’s legal standing is one of public importance, bears directly on the effective administration of the AMLCFT regime, and given that it concerns statutory interpretation and SOCU’s institutional competence, if left undisturbed, may likely recur and affect future proceedings brought by SOCU under the Act.
8. The Full Court examined the AMLCFT Act, in particular, sections 2, 38, 39, 109A and the relevant case law, and determined that the AMLCFT Act “assigns to SOCU in explicit terms, functions that cannot be discharged without recourse to the Courts, particularly the restraining, seizing, detaining and forfeiting of tainted property”. The Court further held that “sections 38 and 109A directly integrate SOCU into the framework of civil restraint and confiscation proceedings”, and that it would be “illogical” to conclude that Parliament intended SOCU to be possessed of those powers yet deny it the procedural means to do so.
9. After analysing the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, the Full Court concluded that SOCU does possess sufficient legal capacity under the AMLCFT Act to institute proceedings for civil restraint and confiscation of property. And that further, there is no need for SOCU to have the corporate personality to do so, as Parliament has expressly conferred upon it, the requisite legal powers as a relevant competent authority, to institute and maintain legal proceedings.
10. The Appellant, SOCU, was represented by the Honourable Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC MP, Shoshanna V. Lall, David Brathwaite, Thalia Thompson and Mohanie Sudama. The Respondent was represented by Mrs. Latchmie Rahamat and Mr. Naresh Poonai.