High Court quashes Magistrate’s decision to dismiss money laundering charges brought by SOCU – INews Guyana

Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, on Monday, granted judicial review relief in favour of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), quashing the decision of Magistrate Dylon Bess, to dismiss four counts of Money Laundering charges for ‘want of prosecution’.

In July 2024, SOCU instituted four counts of criminal charges against Ian Jacobis, Ashiana Salamalay, Shameena Ahmad, and Shafee Ahmad for the offence of money laundering in contravention of section 3(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, Cap. 10:11.

In February 2026, the SOCU matters were reassigned to Magistrate Dylon Bess and were adjourned to April 14, 2026, for ruling on a preliminary point.

On April 14, 2026, SOCU Prosecutors were informed by the clerk of the Diamond Magistrate’s Court that Magistrate Bess had proceeded on special leave following his father’s death and that the SOCU matters would be given a new date. On April 20, 2026, SOCU Prosecutors were informed by the Court-assigned clerk that the SOCU matters were adjourned to June 4, 2026.

On May 6, 2026, Magistrate Bess dismissed the SOCU matters for ‘want of prosecution,’ even though the case jackets recorded that the SOCU matters were adjourned to June 4, 2026 and after the fact that the Court-appointed Clerk had communicated and/or informed the Prosecution that SOCU matters were adjourned to June 4, 2026.

SOCU filed Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court seeking several declarations, and an order of certiorari, quashing the decision of Magistrate Bess, to dismiss the four SOCU matters for want of prosecution. SOCU contended that the Learned Magistrate’s decision was improper, arbitrary and unfair, unreasonable and irrational, capricious and irregular, as it was made in the absence of, and without the knowledge of, and was done without first hearing from the Prosecution.

In those proceedings, Magistrate Bess recounted that he asked Defence counsel, Ms Latchmie Rahamat, to inform the Prosecution that the SOCU matters were set for hearing on May 6, 2026. Ms Rahamat then applied for the SOCU matters to be dismissed for want of prosecution after informing the Court that despite repeated calls to SOCU prosecutors, SOCU seemed uninterested or had abandoned the SOCU matters.

Consequently, Magistrate Bess dismissed the SOCU matters for want of prosecution. Interestingly, SOCU prosecutors were never contacted, informed, or notified by Defence counsel, Ms Latchmie Rahamat, that the SOCU matters were fixed, set, adjourned or being heard on May 6, 2026.

Chief Justice Singh highlighted that, (i) the adjournment in April,2026 was not for the purpose of taking evidence or active prosecution since the SOCU matters were adjourned for the Magistrate to review prior pre-trial rulings which was not caused by prosecutorial default; (ii) the Magistrate did not sit in April, 2026, and the prosecution did not fail to attend or fail to proceed on that date; and (iii) the prosecution being told by the court office that the new date was June 4th may well have resulted from reliance on information communicated by the court itself rather than neglect or abandonment of the prosecution.

Chief Justice Singh in ruling reasoned that ‘a dismissal for want of prosecution in May 2026 was problematic since a dismissal for want of prosecution generally presupposes some culpable failure by the prosecution to diligently pursue the matter and if the prosecution was genuinely informed by the court office that the matter was adjourned to June 4th, then the absence on May 6th was arguably induced by the court administration itself.’

In granting relief, the High Court held that ‘a court should ordinarily be slow to penalise a party for relying on information provided by court staff, especially where the communication relates to an adjourned date as the overriding consideration is fairness.’ The Court went on to say that ‘fairness would require a Magistrate to inquire into the reason for the prosecution’s absence; to ascertain whether notice of May 6th was properly given; to determine whether the prosecution was aware of the May 6th date; and consider whether the absence reflected genuine neglect or merely administrative confusion. Hence, the Court found that an immediate dismissal without such inquiry was drastic.

Hence, Magistrate  Bess dismissal was accordingly quashed, and he was ordered to pay costs in the sum of $50,000.00 to SOCU for wrongfully dismissing the cases.

SOCU Head Deputy Commissioner Fazil Karimbaksh emphasised that it is unfortunate that Unit had to resort to court action again against Magistrate Bess, since this is the second subsequent judicial review proceedings being brought against the Magistrate by SOCU in recent months and the High Court is ruling against his decisions.

The Deputy Commissioner further lamented that it’s “disgusting and unfair” that his agency has to be resorting to court action regularly against Magistrates and having their decisions being overturned by a higher court because of failure to comply with the laws they are appointed to adjudicate on.

SOCU was represented by Attorneys-at-Law and Prosecutors, Mr. David Brathwaite and Mr. Darin Chan, Magistrate Bess was represented by State Counsel from the Attorney General’s Chambers, while the Respondents were represented by Defence Counsel, Ms. Latchmie Rahamat and Mr. Naresh Poonai.

Related