Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) has released the frozen accounts of Villa Group after Supreme Court ruled that the government took back leased islands from the company unlawfully.

RaajjeMV understands that MIRA has released all the Villa accounts, but neither MIRA nor Villa has given an official statement.

In 2015, MIRA ordered Villa to pay back the amount owed to the state in lease payments and fines totaling USD 100 million or MVR 1.5 billion.

Some islands leased to Villa were taken back after nullifying their agreements, and Kaadedhdhoo airport was also taken from the company.

At the time, Villa agreed to pay the amount since it was the only way to continue its business transactions.

MIRA also froze Villa Shipping accounts in March of last year, and publicized a letter stating that the company owed USD 3.8 million in lease payments for Thaa Elaa and USD 14.6 million in fines and MVR 200,000 in interest, totaling USD 18.6 million. Villa filed suit against MIRA on March 26 of last year.

On April 18 this year, Supreme Court reversed High Court’s ruling that the government had acted in accordance with the law by taken back the leased islands from Villa, which is opposition Jumhoree party (JP)’s leader Qasim Ibrahim’s company.

The islands consist of GDh Gazeera, R Maanenfushi, Th Elaa, K Boludhuffaru and Vaavedhdhi Falhu as well as an unnamed small island between the last two islands, K Maadhiggaru Falhu, and Kanuhura Finolhu. After the government nullified the lease agreements for these islands in 2015, Villa filed suit at the Civil Court.

The Civil Court ruled in favor of Villa, and after the government appealed to the High Court, the High Court reversed the Civil Court’s ruling, stating that the government had legally nullified the lease agreements.

At the time, the government stated that the settlement agreement with Villa stipulates that the company cannot sue, but it had violated the agreement after its affiliate company World Link Travels (WLT) sued the state. However, Villa stated that WLT was not a signatory to the agreement and therefore WLT’s actions should not be a sufficient reason for terminating Villa’s lease agreements. Villa also stated that the WLT’s court case was ongoing at the time the settlement agreement was signed.