PG Office: Acquittal of Sea Life Global Owner based on "self-invented" legal elements by court
The state has argued in the High Court that the Criminal Court’s acquittal of Ahmed Moosa (Ammati) in the Sea Life Global fraud case was based on legal elements fabricated by the presiding judge that do not exist in law. Highlighting that the lower court’s decision to classify the matter as a civil dispute was made without due consideration of the evidence, the Prosecutor General’s Office has requested the verdict be overturned. Meanwhile, the High Court has issued a temporary order to withhold Ammati’s passport until the conclusion of the appeal process.
From the High Court proceedings regarding the case of Ammati. | RaajjeMV
The High Court of the Maldives on Sunday held a hearing in the appeal of the acquittal of Ahmed Moosa Mohamed (Ammati), who faced multiple charges in connection with the Sea Life Global corruption scandal.
During Sunday's High Court hearing, the state prosecutor argued that their primary ground for appeal is that the lower court judge interpreted the legal elements in a manner inconsistent with the legislative intent and established principles of statutory interpretation. The prosecutor further stated that the state believes the Criminal Court's ruling violates the principles stipulated in Section 12(l) of the Interpretation Act.
That specific article pertains to the consideration of the legislative intent and the underlying rationale applied by Parliament in its interpretation.
The state prosecutor argued that the statutory provision regarding the offense of embezzlement is explicitly clear. He contended that given such clarity, there is no justification for relying on or drawing examples from the parliamentary "commentary" for interpretation. Furthermore, the state highlighted that the presiding judge had interpreted the offense by incorporating additional elements that are not present within the original legal provision.
For instance, the prosecution highlighted the judge's ruling that a breach of trust must involve a pre-existing fiduciary duty. The state argued that this requirement was an additional element of the offense, unilaterally introduced by the court into the legal definition of embezzlement.
The lower court judge ruled that the charges were not proven primarily on the grounds that the case is civil in nature. The presiding judge further noted that any action regarding Moosa's conduct should be pursued through the civil justice system.
However, the Prosecutor General’s Office maintains that the embezzlement charges brought against Moosa fulfill the essential legal elements of the offense as defined under Section 215 of the Penal Code.
Furthermore, the Prosecutor General’s Office stated that the Criminal Court’s decision to classify these transactions as civil in nature was made without adequate consideration of the evidence presented to prove the charges. The Office also noted that the court had applied an incorrect interpretation of the legal definition of embezzlement as prescribed by law.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has petitioned the High Court of the Maldives to overturn the lower court's ruling, contending that the evidence and testimonies were evaluated in violation of legal principles. The prosecution further argues that the court’s classification of the case as a civil matter, along with its interpretation of the legal elements of embezzlement, contradicts established law. Consequently, the PG Office is seeking a judgment to find the defendants guilty of the charges.
Furthermore, following the office's application to the High Court of the Maldives for an order to prevent Ahmed Moosa from leaving the country pending the conclusion of the appeal process, the court issued an interim order on April 13, 2024, to withhold his passport.
The High Court bench presiding over this case consists of Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla, Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa, and Judge Abdul Maaniu Hussain.
