Voccor v Garae

 

1. This is a Judicial Review claim (JR claim) in relation to a decision of the First Defendant made against the Claimant on 14 November 2024 which determined that the Claimant was not fit and proper person under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2014 as amended (“the decision”). 

 

 

2. The Claimant challenges the above decision dated 14 November 2024 under this Claim and claims:

 

(a) A declaration that there were no reasonable grounds for the decision of the First Defendant dated 14 November 2024 and to determine that the Claimant was not fit and proper person under the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2014 as amended (the “decision”), and/or; 

 

(b) A declaration that before the first Defendant made the Decision the Claimant was not afforded natural justice and/or procedural fairness and the decision was premised on false facts; 

 

(c) A declaration that the Decision was unlawful; 

 

(d) An order that the Defendants pay the Claimant’s costs on an indemnity basis. 

 

 

 

3. The Claimant made the JR Claim on the following grounds: 

 

(a) The Claimant was General Manager to Wanfuteng Bank Limited (“the Bank”) until on or about 12 July 2023; 

 

(b) By letter dated 12 July 2023 her employer terminated her employment under Section 49 of the Employment Act. She was paid notice and full entitlements; 

 

(c) On or about 1 July 2024 the Claimant commenced employment as Country Director of Care International Committee at Port Vila, Vanuatu (“the employer”); 

 

(d) On or about 28 August 2024, the First Defendant wrote to the employer and advised, amongst other matters that: 

 

(i) They were reviewing key persons at the employer including the Claimant; 

 

(ii) The review in respect to the Claimant  identified the Claimant had been terminated from Wanfuteng Bank Limited for serious misconduct which she had committed whilst employed; 

 

(iii) Invited responding submission. 

 

(e) The statement to the employer that the Claimant was terminated for serious misconduct was entirely untrue and prejudicial to the Claimant and specifically her employ as Country Director with the employer; 

 

(f) On or about 9 October 2024 the Claimant received correspondence from the First Defendant advising amongst other matters that: 

 

(i) Care International Committee was a reporting entity with the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2014 (“the Act”); 

 

(ii) Care International Committee was placed on a re-registration review under the Act; 

 

(iii) Upon review the First Defendant was satisfied that within the meaning of 50J(h) of the Act and Clause 15B of the Act Regulation (No. 153 of 2015) that the Claimant was a “disqualified person”; 

 

(iv) An intention to issue a direction for the removal of the Claimant from her employ; 

 

(v) Inviting submission from the Claimant by 18 October 2024. 

 

 

(g) By letter dated 17 October 2024 and consequent on a meeting with the First Defendant, the Claimant through her lawyer wrote to the First Defendant urging restraint in respect to the actions threatened in their 9 October 2024 letter; 

 

(h) By letter dated 21 October 2024 the First Defendant allowed until 25 October 2024 for any further contrary responses from the Claimant; 

 

(i) By letter dated 14 November 2024 the First Defendant wrote to the Care International Committee as employer of the Claimant; 

 

(j) Within the letter referred to above dated 14 November 2024, the First Defendant: 

 

(i) Advised the Claimant was a disqualified person within the meaning of the Act and Regulation; 

 

(ii) The Claimant does not meet the “fit and proper” criteria under the Act; 

 

(iii) Directed the employer remove the Claimant from their employ by 29 November 2024. 

 

(k) In purporting to make the Decision as notified to the Claimant’s employer on 14 November 2024 the First Defendant: 

 

(i) Relied upon grounds that were unreasonable and falsely premised such that no reasonable person exercising the First Defendant’s power would have concluded that the Claimant did not meet the “fit and proper” criteria; 

 

(ii) Denied the Claimant natural justice and procedural fairness in purporting to make the Decision on allegations, which were not fully particularized, and pre-determined the decision against the Claimant based on false premise. 

 

(l) In the premises, the First Defendant acted unlawfully in making the Decision; 

 

(m) By reason of the Fist Defendant’s unlawful Decision the Claimant seeks declarations and orders set out in the beginning of the claim and, by reason of the circumstances in which the Decision was made, seeks costs against the Defendants on an indemnity basis. 

 

 

 

4. The First and Second Defendants filed their defence to the claim to the following effect: 

 

(1) They are aware of the Claimant’s employments as pleaded; 

 

(2) They say that (as to ground 3): 

 

(a) The Defendants acknowledge the factual assertions about the Claimant employment with the Care International Committee (“CIC”); 

 

(b) The CIC is a Reporting Entity (“RE”) and is required to comply with the registration requirements of a RE as required under the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Act no. 13 of 2014 (as amended) (the “AML & CTF Act”); 

 

(c) On 16 June 2021, CIC was registered on the Register of the FIU as a RE by Registration Confirmation Letter from the FIU dated 16 June 2021; 

 

(3) They say that (as to ground 4):

 

(a) Pursuant to section 9A of the AML&CTF Act, if a RE who is registered on the FIU register changes its name or any of its other details required for the purposes of registration, the RE must give the Director written notice of the changes within 14 days after the changes occurs;

 

(b) Section 9A of the AML&CTF Act also provides that the Director of the FIU upon receiving the notice must consider whether the RE continues to meet the requirements for registration and by notice, write to the RE to remove the RE from the register if the Director is not satisfy that the RE continues to meet the registration requirements; 

 

(c) By email dated 30 June 2024, CIC informed the FIU on the changes about the appointment of the new Country Director, Wilmariah Ruth Vocor (the “Claimant”) as required under section 9A of the AML&CTF Act; 

 

(d) Following the email dated 30 June 2024, on 28 August 2024, FIU wrote a letter to the CIC to the effect that it (FIU) has conducted a review on the Claimant as a key person pursuant to section 9A of the AML & CTF Act following her appointment as the Country Director of CIC against the requirements of the AML & CTF pursuant to section 9(4) of the AML & CTF Act; and

 

(4) They say that (as to ground 5):

 

(a) Wanfuteng Bank (the “Bank”) has suspended then later terminated the Claimant and not the FIU and will rely on the Bank findings in relation of the misconduct of the Claimant for their full terms and effects; and they provided the following particulars:

 

(i) Letter from the Wanfuteng Bank (the “Bank”) to the Claimant, Re: Suspension of employment contract and opportunity to respond to serious misconduct charges dated 26 June 2023;

 

(ii) Letter from the Bank to the Claimant, Re: Termination of employment dated 12 July 2023.

 

(5) They say that (as to paragraphs 6 to 13):

 

(a) The FIU review was in compliance with section 9(4) and 9A of the AML & CTF Act to ensure that any key person appointed must meet the Fit & Proper criterias provided in clause 15B of the AML & CTF Regulation;

 

(b) The Director of the FIU consider and took into account relevant informations to review whether the Claimant has satisfied the fit and proper criterias in clause 15B of the AML & CTF Regulation and they provided the following particulars;

 

(i) Letter from FIU to the Claimant as the General Manager of the Bank, Re: AML&CTF Direction – Wanfuteng Bank Board dated 17 April 2023;

 

(ii) Letter from FIU to the Manager Compliance of the Bank, Re: AML&CTF Direction – WBL HR Committee dated 26 May 2023; and

 

(iii) Letter from the Bank to the FIU, Re: Nepotism Breach dated 8 May 2023.

 

(c) The determination of the FIU on whether or not CIC still meet the registration requirements under section 9 of the AML & CTF Act also requires the review on the CIC key persons to be fit and proper;

 

(d) FIU upon its review found that the Claimant was not Fit & proper as per section 50J AML & CTF Act to occupy the position of a Country Director of the CIC given her background in her previous employment with a reporting entity  and FIU also by letter dated 28 August 2024 requested that the CIC to provide its response to the FIU’s findings on the Claimant’s position by 17 September 2024;

 

(e) On 17 September 2024, CIC responded to the FIU’s letter of 28 August 2024 and informed that the Claimant is the right person for CIC who is appropriately qualified to take CIC forward and to oversee and ensure the smooth and efficient provision of the services offered by CIC and they provided as particulars, the Letter from CIC in response to FIU dated 17 September 2024; 

 

(f) By letter dated 9 October 2024, to both CIC and the Claimant FIU informed them of its intention to CIC to remove the Claimant as the Country Director of the CIC pursuant to section 50(I) of the AML & CTF Act;

 

(g) The letter of 9 October 2024 also allowed both the CIC and the Claimant to make any response by way of submissions to the contrary as per subsection 50(I)(2) by Friday 18 October 2024 to FIU;

 

(h) The Director of the FIU was satisfied that the Claimant within the meaning of section 50J(h) of the AML & CTF Act and clause 15B of the AML & CTF Regulation  is a disqualified person;

 

(i) By the letter from the FIU to the CIC and the Claimant dated 9 October 2024, the FIU clearly outlined its reasons for its intention to CIC to remove the claimant and they provided following particulars;

 

 

 

 

(j) On 17 October 2024, the Claimant replied through her lawyer on a without prejudices basis;

 

(k) On 18 October 2024, CIC replied to the FIU’s letter of 9 October 2024 declaring that they had nothing else to add to their original submission and they provided as particulars the Letter from CIC in response to FIU dated 17 September 2024;

 

(l) Say that on 21 October 2024, FIU responded to the Claimant’s lawyer that FIU only issued an intention to the RE, CIC to remove and FIU is yet to make a decision based on the Claimant’s submission and her employer;

 

(m) By letter dated 21 October 2024, FIU allowed the Claimant until 25  October 2024 to make any submission to the contrary of the FIU’s intention to issue directive to CIC as required under section 50I of the AML & CTF Act; 

 

(n) On 25 October 2024, the Claimant’s lawyer responded to the FIU’s letter of 21 October 2024;

 

(o) On 14 November 2024, pursuant to section 50I(4) of the AML & CTF Act, FIU issued a direction to the CIC for the removal of the Claimant as the Country Director to CIC, a copy of the said direction was also sent by email and hand delivered to the Claimant;

 

(p) These findings of the FIU on the background of the Claimant as outlined in paragraphs 4(a) and 5(c) above was based on the information and documentations that were provided to the FIU by the Wanfuteng Bank during review and the Claimant was given the opportunity to provide her response, none of these response / evidences change the evidence that she does not meet the fit and proper person criteria;

 

(q) On the basis of the above matter aforesaid, the FIU Director has acted reasonably to issue directive to the RE, CIC for CIC to consider and remove the Claimant as the Claimant failed to provide any other contrary evidence;

 

(r) On 20 November 2024, CIC wrote a letter to the FIU confirming CIC’s compliance with FIU’s direction to remove the Claimant by 29 November 2024;

 

(s) On 5 December 2024, FIU made a follow-up on the matter with the CIC and CIC provided FIU with a copy of the Claimant’s removal letter dated 26 November 2024 and signed by the Claimant on 27 November 2024;

 

(t) On 27 November 2024, the Claimant filed her claim for judicial review in this proceeding;

 

(u) The Claimant must satisfy the fit and proper criteria in order for the FIU to maintain the registration of CIC as a RE;

 

(v) The findings that the Claimant does not satisfy the fit and proper in clause 15B, it will affect the registration of the CIC as a RE pursuant to section 9 and 9A of the AML &CTF Act,

 

(w) Pursuant to the AML &CTF Act, any opposing submissions on false facts raised by the Claimant should be made to the CIC as a Reporting Entity, the Bank who is the employer of the Claimant and also the RE in this matter, the CIC can or should then relate those purported opposing submission to the FIU;

 

(x) FIU does not own or produced the facts that tantamount to the Claimant as a disqualified person, these findings were provided to the FIU upon request pursuant to the section 45 of the AML&CTF Act during and under the review of Fit & Proper requirements;

 

(y) Based on the above paragraphs 4 and 5, FIU did not rewrite facts under review, but relied upon the informations from the Bank as requested by the FIU and on the update profile of the Claimant from the Bank that is with the FIU; 

 

(z) The process of review began with the RE, CIC in which natural justice was served by the opportunities given to the CIC to provide responses to the intention of the FIU on the removal of the Claimant and later progressed to the second stage where opportunities were given to the Claimant to provide her respond submissions to the reviews, findings and intention of the FIU to remove her;

 

(aa) The FIU did not remove the Claimant but her employer, the CIC did as a RE based on the correspondences with the FIU concerning the review of the CIC’s Registration with the FIU pursuant to subsection 50(J)(1)(h) of the AML &CTF Act and clause 15B of the AML &CTF Regulation;

 

(bb) The decision to remove the Claimant was made by her employer, the CIC and was made in accordance to the AML &CTF Act and the AML &CTF Regulation and is lawful; and

 

(cc) Deny each and every allegations alleged in the paragraphs.

 

(6) In further answer to the grounds of the Claim, the Defendants say that:

 

(a) The CIC as a RE failed to provide substantial response to the FIU on how the Claimant is a fit and proper person against the criterias of a fit and proper person provided in clause 15B of the AML &CTF Regulation;

 

(b) The FIU has powers to direct the CIC to remove the Claimant  pursuant to section 50I of the AML & CTF Act; 

 

(c) Accordingly, the Director of FIU has acted reasonably and in accordance to law in relation to his decision;

 

(d) The Claimant is not entitled to the relief sought or to any other reliefs.

 

 

 

5. The Claimant and the First and Second Defendants agree on the following issues to be determined by the Court: 

 

(i) Were there no reasonable grounds for the decision of the Defendant determining the Claimant not a fit and proper person under the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2024 (“the Act”)?

 

(ii) Can the Court make a declaration that the decision at 1(i) was made without natural justice or procedural fairness being afforded to Ms Vocor? 

 

(iii) Is the Claimant entitled to a declaration that the decision was unlawful?

 

 

 

6. Ms Vocor was until 12 July 2023, General Manager of Wanfuteng Bank Limited. She was then a “key person” under the Act. 

 

7. On 12 July 2023 her employment was terminated on notice with full entitlements under Section 49 of the Employment Act. No adverse findings were ever put to or made against Ms Vocor. 

 

8. On 1 July 2024 Ms Vocor was employed by Care International Committee (CIC) as their Country Director. She was also then a “key person” under the Act. 

 

9. On 28 August 2024 the First Defendant wrote to CIC advising of review of “key persons” which included Ms Vocor. 

 

10. On 9 October 2024 the Claimant received correspondence from the First Defendant advising inter alia that they were satisfied she was a Disqualified Person under Section 15B of the Regulations to the Act. Ms Vocor was invited to respond. 

 

11. By letters from her solicitor dated 17 October 2024 and 25 October 2024 Ms Vocor responded. 

 

12. On 14 November 2024 the First Defendant directed CIC to remove Ms Vocor from their employ. 

 

13. On 20 November 2024, CIC wrote a letter to the FIU confirming CIC’s compliance with FIU’s direction to remove the Claimant by 29 November 2024. 

 

14. By letter dated 26 November 2024 the CIC removed the Claimant as its Country Director. 

 

15. On 27 November 2024, the Claimant filed her claim for judicial review in this proceeding. 

 

 

 

16. Section 9 and 9A(1)(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Act No. 13 of 2014 (as amended) (the “AML & CTF Act”) provides that: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. Section 50J(1)(h) of the AML & CTF Act provides that: 

 

 

18. Clause 15B of the AML & CTF Act provides that: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. The evidence in this case was given through sworn statements and oral evidence with cross-examinations. 

 

20. The Claimant, Ms Vocor gave evidence by sworn statements of 27 November 2024 and 27 March 2025. She was cross-examined. 

 

21. The First Defendant, Mr Teddy Garae, gave evidence by sworn statement of 17 February 2025 and 17 April 2025. He was cross-examined. 

 

22. The relevant documentary evidence was presented by the parties through their statements and the following particular statements can be referred to: 

 

(a) The first documentary evidence is the 12 July 2023 letter from Wanfuteng Bank Limited employer to the Claimant, Ms Vocor, terminating the Claimant’s employment in accordance with her contract with the Bank, and in accordance with Section 49 of the Vanuatu Employment Act [CAP. 160] as amended (WV2/TGL5). I set out the content of that letter for ease of reference: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) The second documentary evidence is the 28 August 2024 letter from the First Defendant to the CIC (WV3/TGL9). I set out the relevant part of the content of that letter: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- In that letter of 28 August 2024, the First Defendant wrote to the employer and advised, amongst other matters that: 

 

(i) They were reviewing key persons at the employer CIC including the Claimant; 

 

(ii) The review in respect to the Claimant identified the Claimant had been terminated from Wanfuteng Bank Limited for serious misconduct which she had committed whilst employed; 

 

(iii) Invited responding submissions from the Claimant by Tuesday 17 September 2024. 

 

(c) The third documentary evidence is the 23 September 2024 letter from Ridgway Blake Lawyers (RBL) to the First Defendant (WV4). The content of that letter is set out below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(d) The fourth documentary evidence is the 9 October 2024 letter from the First Defendant to the Claimant (WV5/TGL12). The content of the letter of 9 October 2024 is set out below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The AML & CTF Act allow for re-review of the same process given that there are changes made to the details of the registration requirements. (Section 9A of the AML & CTF Act).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- In his letter of 9 October 2024, the First Defendant wrote to the Claimant and advised, amongst other matters that: 

 

(i) Care International Committee was a reporting entity with the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2024; 

 

(ii) Care International Committee was placed on a re-registration review under the Act; 

 

(iii) Upon review the First Defendant was satisfied that within the meaning of 50J(h) of the Act and Clause 15B of the Act Regulation (No. 153 of 2015) that the Claimant was a “disqualified person”; 

 

(iv) An intention to issue a direction for the removal of the Claimant from her employ; 

 

(v) Inviting submission from the Claimant by 18 October 2024; 

 

(e) The fifth documentary evidence is the 17 October 2024 letter from RBL to the First Defendant (WV6). The content of that letter is reproduced below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(f) The sixth documentary evidence is the 21 October 2024 letter from the First Defendant to RBL (WV7/TGL14). The content of that letter is also reproduced below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(g) The seventh documentary evidence is the 25 October 2024 letter from RBL to the First Defendant (TGL15). The content of that letter is reproduced below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(h) The eighth and last documentary evidence is the 14 November 2024 letter from the First Defendant to the CIC employer and the Claimant (WV8/TGL16). The content is also reproduced below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- In that letter of 14 November 2024, the First Defendant wrote to the Care International Committee as employer of the Claimant and copied it to the Claimant: 

 

(i) Advised the Claimant was a disqualified person within the meaning of the Act and Regulation; 

 

(ii) The Claimant does not meet the “fit and proper person” criteria under the Act; 

 

(iii) Directed the employer remove the Claimant from their employ by 29 November 2024. 

 

 

 

23. Based on evidence, I find that the Claimant letter of termination from Wanfuteng dated 12 July 2023 has always been significantly misconstrued or misunderstood by the First Defendant (WV2/TGL5). They have always referred to it as a dismissal for serious misconduct. It is a fact that this serious misconception was what prompted RBL to attend with FIU in September 2024 (see WV4). Despite that meeting the First Defendant continued to wrongly maintain that the Claimant, Ms Vocor, was terminated for serious misconduct – see WV5/TGL12, page 3 last paragraph, which is reproduced here: 

 

 

 

24. It is also a fact that this misconception or misunderstanding was 1 of 3 “findings” the First Defendant made against the Claimant, Ms Vocor, that they sought response to. This is of great concern in respect to fairness to the Claimant, Ms Vocor, when she had even with goodwill had her solicitors meet with them in September 2024 to clarify the issues she had when employed at Wanfuteng Bank. The Claimant, Ms Vocor, has never been determined not fit and proper person. Also, there were no finding against her by her former employer. She was not terminated for any serious misconduct. There was never any such determination. She was paid full notice and severance in accord with Section 49 of the Employment Act. 

 

25. It can be inferred that this inability to listen or understand the basic facts and the corresponding processes gave great concern for the veracity and integrity of the other 2 “findings” made against the Claimant, Ms Vocor. It is very difficult or impossible for one in the situation of the Claimant to effectively respond to somebody in the shoes of the First Defendant who does not listen but had lots of powers under the AML & CTF Act. It may be dangerous because the law is not applied for the purpose and in the context for which it should be applied. The law is applied on a wrong view of the fact, like in this case, that the Claimant, Ms Vocor, was dismissed for serious misconduct, which is wrong as inaccurate. 

 

26. The other two findings are detailed on page 4, the final page of the 9 October 2024 letter from the First Defendant to the Claimant (WV5/TGL12). I reproduce these two findings here for ease of reference: 

 

 

 

 

27. The first significant point about “findings” 2 and 3 is that they both refer to annexes. These annexes are not in evidence. There are no attachments to WV5/TGL12. The First Defendant cannot rely on undisclosed material. 

 

 

28. Further, in her Further Sworn Statement, Ms Vocor stated at paragraphs 15: 

 

 

29. This evidence was uncontested. 

 

30. Further at paragraph 14 of the same statement, referring to the 3 “findings” to respond to, Ms Vocor said: 

 

 

 

31. At paragraph 16 she stated: 

 

“Lawyers Sugden had responded to these allegations … Following Sugden’s response this allegation was no longer referred to in ongoing discussions” see WV1B attached to her Further Statement. The content of Mr Sugden’s letter to Bob Hughes, Director of Wanfuteng Bank, Port Vila dated 28 June 2023 to this effect was reproduced below: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32. None of this evidence was contested. 

 

33. So, the picture becomes clear. The First Defendant maintained a wrong view that the Claimant, Ms Vocor, was dismissed for serious misconduct. The simple basic fact is that after Mr Sugden’s Response letter to the allegations of serious misconduct of 22 June 2023, the very allegations in respect of any alleged serious misconduct were not pursued and effectively withdrawn when she was terminated without cause under Section 49 of the Employment Act. 

 

34. These very allegations, together with the misconceived notion of dismissal for serious misconduct, were referred to as “findings” by the First Defendant. Findings that determined the Claimant, Ms Vocor, not fit and proper person. I agree and accept the submissions of Mr Morrison on behalf of the Claimant that it was seriously unlawful, verging on ignorant process. 

 

35. Confronted with the situations in this case, the RBL letter of 25 October 2024 was in context as on point. The relevant part of that letter is referred to again here: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36. The letter of 25 October 2024 reflected the situation that having been ignored in a meeting in September 2024 and being confronted with “findings” which were from that it is well understood why they would write confirming denials and factual inaccuracy and absence of natural justice. 

 

37. The following case authorities support the case of the Claimant: 

 

• Michel v President of the Republic of Vanuatu [2015] VUCA 14 at 25-26 where the Court of Appeal held:

 

 

 

• Minister of Education and Training v Tabi [2023] VUCA 30 at 31 where the Court of Appeal held: 

 

 

 

38. On a proper review at that time, and if the FIU operated with diligence and integrity, they would at the very least have made inquiry of Mr Hughes at Wanfuteng to consider the merit or otherwise of the asserted “findings”. They did not do such. There was no evidence from Mr Hughes or indeed anybody of authority at Wanfuteng Bank. 

 

39. The submissions of the First and Second Respondents in this case are based on misconstruing or misunderstanding of the basic facts and processes by the First Defendant and so, the submissions made cannot assist the Court in this case. 

 

40. This case shows that the First Defendant has not listened, not inquired and relied on unproven, untested and mistaken information to remove the Claimant, Ms Vocor, from career employment. “Incorrigible” can be added to the list of the FIU’s unreasonable behavior given in IFTC Limited v Teddy Garae [2025] VUSC; Judicial Review 3492 of 2024 (4 April 2025).

 

41. In this case, the Claimant, Ms Vocor, is entitled to the declarations and orders she sought in her JR claim. 

 

42. The Court makes the following declarations and orders: 

 

 

(1) A declaration that there were no reasonable grounds for the decision of the First Defendant dated 14 November 2024 and to determine that the Claimant was not fit and proper person under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act No. 13 of 2014 as amended (the “decision”), and/or; 

 

(2) A declaration that before the First Defendant made the Decision the Claimant was not afforded natural justice and/or procedural fairness and the decision was premised on false facts; 

 

(3) A declaration that the Decision was unlawful; 

 

(4) An order that the costs must follow the event. The Claimant seeks costs on indemnity basis. The Defendants shall file and serve submissions as to the costs on 20 August 2024 by 4:00pm. Any submissions in reply shall be filed and served by 4:00pm on 25 August. The Court will decide the costs of the proceedings on the papers after submissions are filed.