Taleb v Director of Public Prosecutions

The case of Taleb v Director of Public Prosecutions involves the applicant seeking an exclusion of interest from the operation of a restraining order on four units, which were subject to confiscation proceedings. The applicant had advanced $150,000 to his brother-in-law, who was acting on behalf of the company that owned the units, for the purpose of completing the development of the units. However, the applicant was unaware of his brother-in-law’s involvement in drug trafficking, which led to the restraining order being imposed on the units. The restraining order was later varied to allow the sale of the units, with the net proceeds held by the Assets Confiscation Office. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had an equitable interest in the units or proceeds of sale and whether the court was entitled to consider affidavit evidence in determining the terms of the agreements.

The court examined the nature of the agreements between the applicant and the company, which were rudimentary hand-written documents drafted by a non-lawyer. The court found that the terms of the agreements were established by unchallenged affidavit evidence. The court also considered the meaning of “right, power or privilege over, or in connection, with property” and whether the applicant was entitled to an order for payment from the net proceeds of sale on the basis that it would be “just”. The court held that the agreements were partly written and partly oral, and that the applicant had a right over or in connection with the property in the form of an equitable interest. The court found that it was entitled to have regard to the affidavit evidence and that the applicant was entitled to an order for payment from the net proceeds of sale on the basis that it would be “just”.

The court ordered that the applicant’s equitable interest be excluded from the operation of the restraining order, and that the applicant be paid $150,000 from the net proceeds of sale. The court also ordered that the remaining net proceeds be held by the Assets Confiscation Office pending further orders. The court held that the applicant had a right over or in connection with the property, and that it was entitled to consider the affidavit evidence in determining the terms of the agreements. The court found that the confiscation legislation did not preclude the court from making an order that was “just” in the circumstances.