Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Nehanda, post: 21660, member: 2262"] Frank Chitukutuku, the former CEO of [URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/tags/zimbabwe/']Zimbabwe[/URL] National Road Administration (Zinara), has gone to the Supreme Court. He wants to appeal against a High Court ruling that ordered the forfeiture of his properties. Frank argues that he lawfully acquired the properties before the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act was enacted in 2013. Last year, the High Court said Frank's assets were acquired using illicit funds misappropriated from Zinara during his time as CEO. The court noted that Frank failed to explain the source of his wealth adequately. The assets include two houses in the affluent suburbs of Borrowdale and Glen Lorne, luxury vehicles, and shares in Champions Insurance Company. However, Frank now claims that the forfeiture order was applied retroactively, which goes against legal principles. He argues that the Act cannot be used for properties acquired before it came into force on June 28, 2013. Frank says the Borrowdale house was purchased in 2011 through a mortgage bond worth US$200,000, which was approved after an assessment. Frank claims that between 2011 and 2016, he earned US$2.8 million from selling eggs and received US$619,498 in dividends from Champions Insurance. He also says the company gave him interest-free loans totaling US$1.4 million. Frank disputes allegations that a US$40,000 payment from Fremus Enterprises was used to acquire the Glen Lorne property, arguing that the funds came from farming activities and legitimate earnings. Frank insists that the properties were acquired through hard work, loans, and legitimate business activities, including farming and earnings as Zinara CEO. He accuses the Prosecutor-General of relying on unverified opinions and statements from potential witnesses in a pending criminal case against him. However, the Prosecutor-General, through chief law officer Chris Mutangadura, argues that the circumstances under which the acquired properties strongly suggest money laundering. The case is ongoing, and the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to overturn the High Court's ruling based on the arguments presented by both sides. [/QUOTE]

Name