Four charges before the Financial Crimes Division: DPP challenges Cehl Meeah's acquittal verdict

• He argues that the version of the main witness was not taken into account

On March 15, 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court the verdict of acquittal pronounced on March 1, 2024, by the Financial Crimes Division against Mohammad Cehl Fakeemeeah (Cehl Meeah). The latter, aged 65, was answerable for fraud, forgery, use of forgery and money laundering committed in 2014 in Port-Louis.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) put forward nineteen points to oppose the acquittal verdict pronounced on March 1, 2024, before the FCD. The motion of appeal was filed on March 15, 2024, by Me Eswaree Ramdass Bundhun, Deputy Chief State Attorney at the DPP's office. The appeal will be heard on May 13, 2025, before the Supreme Court.

The points of appeal raised are that the FCD made an error in considering that Maurice Pierre Germain Caillibot had never explained the mode of “fraudulent maneuvers”. And the FCD should not have concluded that the accusation of fraud had not been established.

According to the DPP, the FCD magistrate ignored crucial evidence presented by the prosecution: the testimonies of Maurice Pierre Germain Gallibot, Hatez Tinkory Oliver, sub-inspector and graphologist Navindranath Burumdoyal, Inspector Roussety, Sergeant Juwaheer and Mohammad Iqbal Noor E Azam.

In addition, the DPP argued that the FCD did not take into account the version of the main witness Maurice Pierre Germain Caillibot. The FCD also failed to evaluate the testimony of Sergeant Juwaheer who had carried out an identification exercise between Cehl Meeah and Hafez Tinkory Olivier. She, according to the DPP, identified Cehl Meeah as the person who showed her the land and to whom she gave the money.

Other points raised are that the FCD did not examine exhaustively and adequately the elements of the various offenses, that they had not been established by the prosecution.

For the DPP, the FCD failed “in holding that none of the prosecution witnesses pointed out that they have ben swindled”. And also that there was no evidence of “forgery”.

Furthermore, argues the Deputy Chief State Attorney, the FCD did not take into account “document evidence adduced by the prosecution including the handwriting expert report”.

According to the DPP, the FCD made a mistake in striking out the four charges against Cehl Meeah.

Cehl Meeah was facing four charges before the FCD: fraud, forgery, use of forgery and money laundering. He allegedly defrauded Rs 600,000 from a sixty-year-old residing in England in 2014. He had pleaded not guilty.

For the FCD, the elements of the four offenses were not established by the prosecution. As a result, she acquitted Cehl Meeah and struck out the charges against him.