A UK court has ordered the forfeiture of more than £258,000 held in a bank account linked to a Seychelles national, in what is referred to as the Marinette Soumery forfeiture case.
The ruling, delivered on 22 April 2026 at City of London Magistrates’ Court, followed an application by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA). The agency sought to seize funds held in a Bank of Baroda account in Ms Soumery’s name.
The court found that the money was obtained through unlawful conduct or was intended for use in unlawful activity.
District Judge Sam Goozée said:
“I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the money in the account has been obtained by unlawful conduct and is intended for use in unlawful conduct.”
The judgment also stated:
“The transactions into the account look like money laundering, and that is probably what it is.”
The case centres on funds totalling $258,656.24, which had been frozen since March 2024 under an Account Freezing Order.
The court heard that Ms Soumery is a Seychelles national who worked as a secretary and executive assistant. She had professional links to Mukesh Valabhji, a former public official in Seychelles.
Evidence presented by the NCA linked deposits in the account to companies associated with Mr Valabhji. These included payments from Karimjee Jivanjee & Co (UK) Ltd and Brent International Investments Ltd.
The judge found that the circumstances of the transactions were “highly suspicious” and that the payments were not consistent with the explanation provided.
The court also noted that explanations provided for the funds were not tested under cross-examination. Ms Soumery and Mr Valabhji did not give live evidence.
As a result, the judge said limited weight could be given to their accounts.
Ms Soumery argued that the funds represented earnings from her work over several years. She said payments were linked to employment arrangements, including work on a telecommunications project and later roles in the private sector.
However, the court found no documentation to support that explanation. It also found no clear reason why payments were made through third-party companies.
The judge concluded that the transactions had “all the hallmarks of money laundering” and had not been satisfactorily explained.
The court also considered whether the application was brought outside the legal time limit.
Ms Soumery argued that the claim was time-barred, as the last deposits into the account dated back to 2007.
The NCA argued that the relevant time period began when it had sufficient evidence to act, following its investigation.
The judge found that the application was made within the required time limits. The court held that the earliest point at which action could be brought was when investigators had sufficient evidence and while the account freezing order was in force.
The case involved cooperation between UK authorities and Seychelles’ Anti-Corruption Commission. The NCA said its investigation followed international mutual legal assistance.
The court rejected arguments that the proceedings were an abuse of process. It found no evidence that the NCA had acted improperly.
In its final order, the court ruled that the full balance of the account, along with any accrued interest, should be forfeited.
Costs are to be determined.
Legal disclaimer: This article is based on a court judgment. The full judgment can be found at: https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/nca-v-soumery-22april2026002.pdf