State to appeal Criminal Court's acquittal of Ammaty at High Court
The Criminal Court has acquitted Ahmed Moosa of 42 charges related to the SeaLife housing scam, ruling that the allegations of defrauding numerous victims of their down payments constitute a civil matter rather than a criminal offense.
Ahmed Moosa Mohamed, who faces serious allegations in connection with the SeaLife corruption scandal. | Social Media | Social Media
The state has announced its intention to appeal the court's decision, which ruled that the charges against Ahmed Moosa Mohamed (Ammaty) in connection with the SeaLife corruption scandal were not proven.
Following the conclusion of the trial, the Criminal Court ruled on Thursday, April 9, 2026, that the charges against the defendant were not proven.
On May 30, 2021, 42 counts of embezzlement were filed at the Criminal Court against Ahmed Moosa Mohamed, the Managing Director of SeaLife Global Inc. Pvt Ltd. The charges were brought under Section 215(a) and (b) of the Maldives Penal Code (Law No. 9/2014). The case involves an agreement between the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and SeaLife Global Inc. Pvt Ltd for the construction of 3,000 housing units in Hulhumale'. It is alleged that the company failed to carry out the physical construction within the stipulated timeframe and instead engaged in a fraudulent scheme to collect substantial sums of money from various individuals, subsequently misappropriating those funds.
The primary reason cited for the acquittal was the civil nature of the allegations. The presiding judge noted that the actions of Ahmed Moosa Mohamed should be addressed through the civil justice system rather than via criminal proceedings.
The Prosecutor General’s Office maintains that the embezzlement charges brought against Ahmed Moosa Mohamed fulfill the essential elements of the offense as defined under Section 215 of the Penal Code. The PG Office stated that the Criminal Court’s ruling, which categorized these transactions as being civil in nature, was reached without adequate consideration of the evidence submitted to prove the charges. Furthermore, the PG Office asserted that the court’s decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the legal definition of embezzlement.
Consequently, the Prosecutor General’s Office has decided to appeal the Criminal Court's verdict of acquittal in the High Court of the Maldives.
