Monthly Archives: April 2026

Seychelles’ Case Sets Precedent for Asset Forfeiture

Posted on by
Reply

U.K. Magistrate District Judge Sam Goozée ruled April 22 that the statute of limitations in a civil forfeiture starts to run only when the National Crime Agency learns of the existence of the assets and their illegal origin (here). As a result, he ordered the forfeiture of some $260,000 in the London bank account of Marinette Soumery, a secretary of Mukesh Valabhji, a former Seychelles government official charged with 11 counts of corruption, abuse of authority of office and money laundering (here).

In its forfeiture application, the NCA linked the money to companies and individuals associated with Valabhji and showed he and Soumery had taken elaborate steps to disguise its source. Because of the “highly suspicious” actions taken to hide where the funds came from, their links to Valabhji and associates, and Soumery and Valabhji’s inability to offer a credible explanation for their origin, the court ordered the money forfeited pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act, ruling:

there was “cogent and compelling” evidence giving “rise to an irresistible inference that the money in the account could only have been acquired through criminal activity.”

Statute of Limitation Defense

Soumery’s main defense was that however the funds were acquired, the PCA’s six-year statute of limitations, which runs from when “the property was obtained,” had expired in 2007, the date of the last deposit to the account.

Continue reading →

A Bad Bet for Judicial Vetting: Moldova’s Parliament Echoing Polish Politics

Posted on by
1

GAB is pleased to cross-post Tilman Hoppe’s April 22 post on judicial vetting policy from Verfassungsblog, a leading source of analysis and informed commentary on public law issues.

In 2022, Moldova launched an ambitious judicial vetting process to fight corruption in the justice system. To that end, it created special commissions tasked with reviewing the integrity of members of judicial self-governing bodies, as well as senior judges and prosecutors. Because such bodies exercise far-reaching powers over judicial careers and discipline, their own independence is crucial.

In Moldova, this independence is now at stake: the ruling majority of Parliament lowered the threshold for appointing members to a simple majority. What may appear to be a technical adjustment points to something more fundamental. Read in light of the ECtHR’s case law on Poland’s contested justice reforms, the new Moldovan threshold risks undermining the Commission’s independence under Article 6 ECHR and, unfortunately with it, the legitimacy of the vetting process itself.

Click here to continue reading.

Legislation to Stop President, VP from Abusing Power to Steal Taxpayer Funds

Posted on by
Reply

On April 15 House and Senate Democrats introduced a bill entitled Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act. Key provisions include:

  • Ban the sitting President/VP from collecting settlement payments from the United States by prohibiting the President, Vice President (VP), their spouses/children, a trust that exists for their benefit, or an entity they own or control, from collecting damages payments from the United States through a settlement or similar agreement with the government the President/VP leads.
  • Pause the filing and processing of a sitting President or VP’s administrative claims by prohibiting federal agencies from processing or fulfilling damages claims brought by the President/VP. Also, prohibit the President/VP from filing administrative claims for damages while in office.
  • Impose guardrails on the President/VP’s federal lawsuits seeking damages by only allowing the President/VP to collect compensatory damages awarded by a federal court if the court appoints an independent counsel to represent the agency and makes all proceedings public.
  • Cooling-off period during a former VP’s term as President, meaning if a former President’s VP is elected President, impose the same restrictions on the former President while the former VP is still in the White House.
  • Impose guardrails on claims by former presidents/VPs by allowing former presidents/VPs to collect damages from the U.S. government, but only if:

Link to more detailed explanation and copy of the bill here.

From Diagnostic to Implementation: An Update from Sri Lanka

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s guest post is from Till Hartmann, Governance Specialist with the World Bank, based in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and positions of the World Bank.

The global anticorruption field has in recent years had more reason to play defense than offense. In several jurisdictions, earlier gains have come under pressure, including through shifts in enforcement priorities and legal constraints on transparency measures. A recent analysis documents a significant reversal in U.S. anticorruption policy. At the same time, earlier momentum on public beneficial ownership transparency in Europe has been curtailed following a 2022 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union—an issue discussed on this blog shortly after the decision.

Against this backdrop, it is worth examining cases where reform momentum—though fragile—has translated into concrete institutional change. Sri Lanka is one such case. An earlier post on this blog described how civil society engagement helped shape the IMF’s 2023 Governance Diagnostic Assessment and the country’s post-crisis reform agenda. The question now is what has followed—and whether it has resulted in tangible progress.

Continue reading →