Beezadhur v The Independent Commission against Corruption & Anor (Mauritius) (Rev 1)

[2014] UKPC 27
Privy Council Appeal No 0083 of 2013

LORD CARNWATH:

(i) On which party does the onus of proof lie regarding the application of exemptions under section 5(2) of the Act?

(ii) What is meant by the words "lawful business activities" in the definition of "exempt transaction" in section 2 of that Act?

The statutory provisions

"5. Limitation of payment in cash

(1) Notwithstanding section 37 of the Bank of Mauritius Act 2004, but subject to subsection (2), any person who makes or accepts any payment in cash in excess of 500,000 rupees or an equivalent amount in foreign currency, or such amount as may be prescribed, shall commit an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to an exempt transaction."

" 'exempt transaction' means a transaction –

(a) between the Bank of Mauritius and any other person;

(b) between a bank and another bank;

(c) between a bank and a financial institution;

(d) between a bank or a financial institution and a customer where -

(i) the customer is, at the time the transaction takes place, an established customer of the bank or financial institution; and

(ii) the transaction consists of a deposit into, or withdrawal from, an account maintained by the Customer with the bank or financial institution, where the transaction does not exceed an amount that is commensurate with the lawful business activities of the customer; or

(e) between such other persons as may be prescribed;" (emphasis added)

The issue in this case turns on the construction of exemption (d), in particular the italicised words.