BY SAM ALFAN.
The troubles facing a close ally of Deputy President William Ruto seeems far from over after a state agency asked the High Court to order the forfeiture of more than 200 million frozen arguing that they are proceeds of crime.
In submissions filed in court, Asset Recovery Agency says the millions Mathira MP Rigathi Gachagua claims to be “loans” are just decoy of money laundering, to mislead the court.
ARA submitted that there are no link between the alleged “loans” and the funds, which were frozen in 2020.
“The funds in issue were “loans” borrowed from each other or guaranteed are illogical and not supported by any evidence”, submitted the agency.
The agency told the court that the allegations by Gachagua he moved funds one account to another to trade with or hold in trust is frivolous.
ARA said this is because the companies are legal entities that can enter into agreement with other entities including the shareholders or directors.
But in Gachagua’s case, no agreements between him, Anne Kimemia/Jenne Enterprises ltd and his companies has been exhibited.
The agency also dismissed allegations by Gachagua that the case was a political witch hunt.
“We submit that the issue before this court is the legitimacy of the funds and whether the same can be forfeited to the state, the issue is not about political inclination or association”, submitted the agency.
The agency also dismissed attempts to link the funds to Anne Kimemia and Jenne Enterprises, saying the explanation offered was unsatisfactory.
ARA says her business entity and account were used by Gachagua as a canduit of money laundering.
The agency further asked the court to strike out an affidavit filed by Benjamin Kuria Wangai on behalf of a bank saying there was no board resolution authorizing him to depone and file affidavit dated January 26,2021 on behalf of the Bank.
“This cannot be done by a party who is a stranger in the matter without first admitted into the matter or introduced as a relevant party in the matter”.
The agency submits that filing of Board resolutions is not required under the Companies Act and contrary to the respondents submissions, section 27 of the companies Act requires special resolutions to be filed with regustrar of companies and respondents have not filed with registrar of companies any resolutions.
“This means that what they filed as produced as Board resolutions are just their invention as explained in our affidavit. Section 210,211, 317 and 318 of companies Act relied upon by respondents are irrelevant in this matter the resolution contemplated under those section are supposed to be recorded and filed accordance with section 27 which respondents have not proved”, added the agency.
