High Court throws out Mohameds’ bid to have Cambio licence reinstated

Mar 06, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Justice Damone Younge on Thursday dismissed the application by embattled businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed to have their Cambio licence reinstated.

The duo facing United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanction on allegations of fraud, money laundering and gold smuggling, had challenged the Bank of Guyana (BOG)’s revocation of their license. In their application, the father and son claimed that the licence for their business place Confidential Cambio was revoked despite the fact that they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation, in breach of the principles of natural justice.  The two contended further that the BOG “acted unfairly, unreasonably and in breach of lawful procedure when it revoked their’ cambio licence based solely on an external designation without due process.”

Consequently, their Fixed Date Application (FDA) sought judicial review of the bank’s decision several orders including a declaration that the decision to revoke the Cambio license is unlawful, null, void and of no legal effect; an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Bank of Guyana made on or about the 12^th  and 13^th  of June 2024 revoking the applicants’ Cambio licence, a declaration that the applicants’ right to be heard and right to natural justice were violated, a declaration that the applicants are entitled to the protection of the Constitution and laws of Guyana, and that decisions made by foreign governments or agencies do not have automatic legal effect in Guyana.

Finally, the duo asked for an order of mandamus compelling the Respondent to restore the Cambio licence. In its consideration, the Court noted that it is clear from the expressed provisions of the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act the Bank of Guyana has the power to revoke a licence.

“This power can be exercised where the licensee has ceased to carry on the licenced business for a particular period or has contravened or failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or any provision of the Act.” One such provision of the Act is section 4 (1), which is the basis upon which the licence would have been issued in the first place.” “In this Court’s considered view…the appearance of the Applicants on the SDN list would and has, in this Court’s view, negatively impacted whatever good character the Applicants may have enjoyed prior to the imposition of the OFAC sanction and at the time they were issued the licence…In those circumstances, this Court holds that the bank had every right, and indeed an obligation, to consider the Applicants’ sanctioned status and having done so and found them no longer ‘fit and proper’, was empowered to revoke the Applicants’ licence on that ground. The revocation of the Applicants’ licence by the Respondent was therefore done in accordance with the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act.”

As it relates to the opportunity to be heard, the Court noted that from the evidence available, it appeared that a letter was sent by the bank via electronic mail addressed to Nazar Mohamed who then responded the following day at 8:15 a.m., also via email, by stating, “I will be there, thank you”

This email exchange was not challenged by the applicants, though it was not revealed by them in their application. The fact that the senior Mohamed did not attend the meeting despite confirming his attendance was also not disputed. “It is clear to this Court that the Applicants were provided with an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation of the licence, but for reasons known only to them, they did not avail themselves of the opportunity. This Court does not agree with the Applicants’ submission that at the time that letter was sent the respondent [BOG] had already predetermined the matter, nor does this Court agree with their contention that the letter of the 12th June 2024 was a revocation of the licence,” the judge stated in her determination of the matter

Finally, the Court determined that there was an inordinate delay in that the Applicants waited until one year to the day after their licence was revoked to file their FDA. “This Court considers that this period constitutes undue delay, compounded by the fact that the Applicants did not see it to offer any explanation as to why it took them this long to seek judicial review of the Respondent’s decision to revoke their licence,” the Court noted in its decision. As such, it dismissed the Mohamed’s application and awarded cost to the BOG in the sum of $250,000.00 to be paid on or before the 10th April 2026.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, cambio licence, Confidential Cambio, High Court

---