Chief Justice overturns dismissal of SOCU money laundering charges

Jul 04, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh on Monday quashed the decision of Magistrate Dylon Bess, to dismiss four (4) counts of Money Laundering charges brought against citizens by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU).

According to information disseminated from SOCU, the charges were brought against Ian Jacobis, Ashiana Salamalay, Shameena Ahmad, and Shafee Ahmad  for the offence of money laundering in contravention of section 3(1) (b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, Cap. 10:11.

SOCU said the matters were before Magistrate Dylon Bess and following several adjournments later dismissed for want of prosecution.  However, on Monday, Chief Justice Singh found the dismissal for want of prosecution in May 2026 was problematic since a dismissal for want of prosecution generally presupposes some culpable failure by the prosecution to diligently pursue the matter and if the prosecution was genuinely informed by the court office that the matter was adjourned to June 4, then the absence on May 6 was arguably induced by the court administration itself.’

Chief Justice Singh highlighted  that,(i) the adjournment in April 2026 was not for the purpose of taking evidence or active prosecution since the SOCU matters were adjourned for the magistrate to review prior pre-trial rulings which was not caused by prosecutorial default; (ii) the magistrate did no sitting for April 2026, and the prosecution did not fail to attend or fail to proceed on that date; and (iii) the prosecution being told by the court office that the new date was June 4 may well have resulted from reliance on information communicated by the court itself rather than neglect or abandonment of the prosecution.

SOCU had filed judicial review proceedings in the high court seeking several declarations, and an order of certiorari, quashing the decision of Magistrate Bess, to dismiss the four SOCU matters for want of prosecution. SOCU contended that the learned magistrate’s decision was improper, arbitrary and unfair, unreasonable and irrational, capricious and irregular, as it was made in the absence of, and without the knowledge of, and was done without first hearing from the prosecution.

In those proceedings, Magistrate Bess recounted that he asked Defence Counsel Latchmie Rahamat, to inform the prosecution that the SOCU matters were set for hearing on May 6, 2026. Ms. Rahamat then applied for the SOCU matters to be dismissed for want of prosecution after informing the court that despite repeated calls to SOCU prosecutors, SOCU seemed uninterested or had abandoned the SOCU matters. Consequently, Magistrate Bess dismissed the SOCU matters for want of prosecution.

In granting relief, the high court held that ‘a court should ordinarily be slow to penalise a party for relying on information provided by court staff, especially where the communication relates to an adjourned date as the overriding consideration is fairness.’   The court said further, that ‘fairness would require a magistrate to inquire into the reason for the prosecution’s absence; to ascertain whether notice of May 6 was properly given; to determine whether the prosecution was aware of the May 6 date; and consider whether the absence reflected genuine neglect or merely administrative confusion.             Hence, the court found that an immediate dismissal without such inquiry was drastic.

Hence, Magistrate Dylon Bess’ dismissal was accordingly quashed, and he was ordered to pay costs in the sum of $50,000.00 to SOCU.

In a comment, head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh emphasised that it is unfortunate that SOCU had to resort to court action again against Magistrate Bess, since this is the second subsequent judicial review proceedings being brought against the magistrate by SOCU in recent months.

The deputy commissioner further lamented that it is disgusting and unfair that his agency SOCU has to be resorting to court action regularly against magistrates and having their decisions being overturned by a higher court.

In   this matter, SOCU was represented by attorneys and prosecutors, Mr. David Brathwaite and Mr. Darin Chan, Magistrate Dylon Bess was represented by State Counsel from the Attorney General’s chambers, while the respondents were represented by defence counsel, Ms. Latchmie Rahamat and Mr. Naresh Poonai.

---

• Chief Justice, money laundering, SOCU

---