Rosalyn Train

The Attorney General applied for civil forfeiture of a residential property under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, alleging it was the proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity (marihuana trafficking).

The respondent property owner argued she was a legitimate and responsible owner who purchased the property with an inheritance.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence, finding the property was acquired with proceeds of unlawful activity and used as a marihuana distribution centre.

The court held the respondent was not a legitimate or responsible owner and that forfeiture was not clearly against the interests of justice.

The application for forfeiture was granted.

The applicant sought civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 of cash seized during the execution of a search warrant at a rural property associated with extensive drug activity.

Police discovered large quantities of controlled substances, trafficking paraphernalia, weapons, and significant cash bundled in a manner consistent with drug trafficking.

A claimant asserted ownership of the money, alleging it derived from a dog breeding and farm animal business and the sale of a vehicle.

The court rejected the claimant’s evidence as unsupported and internally inconsistent, noting the absence of business records and the implausibility of the explanation.

On a balance of probabilities, the court found the funds were proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and ordered forfeiture.