Trust beneficiaries' appeal rejected in "landmark" privy council case

Saturday 10 June 2023

Negotiations have begun with Indonesia to share £1.325m currently held in Jersey’s criminal offences confiscation fund, following what Attorney General Mark Temple has described as a "landmark" judgment by the Privy Council’s Judicial Committee – the highest appeal court for Jersey.

The Judicial Committee rejected arguments made on behalf of the beneficiaries of a trust established in Jersey by convicted Indonesian fraudster Robert Tantular, and affirmed the power of the island’s courts to use asset-freezing orders in what Mr Temple described as "an effective way".

"Whilst the case has taken ten years to reach a conclusion, it shows the extent of the Law Officers’ Department’s commitment to defending Jersey’s reputation for tackling international financial crime," the Attorney General said.

This week, the Judicial Committee handed down three judgments arising from the same dispute over the scope of two saisies judiciaires – or freezing orders – granted by the Royal Court following an approach in 2013 by the Indonesian authorities.

They were pursuing the assets of Mr Tantular, president director of two companies which owned shares in the Indonesian bank PT Bank Century Tbk.

Following the bank’s collapse in 2008, Mr Tantular was convicted of fraud and money laundering offences in Indonesia, verdicts subsequently upheld by the country’s supreme court.

In 2004, he had established a Jersey trust – the Jasmine Trust – whose holding company subsequently bought a Singapore apartment for 7.1m Singapore dollars – around £4.2 million at today’s rates – in which Mr Tantular’s wife and children lived.

The apartment was mortgaged to Credit Suisse in the sum of about 4.4 million Singapore dollars at the time the first freezing order was granted by the Royal Court in 2013.

Beneficiaries of the Jasmine Trust brought the first appeal, claiming it was unlawful because the Jersey courts did not have jurisdiction over assets in a foreign jurisdiction held through a British Virgin Islands holding company.

However, the Judicial Committee upheld the judgments of both the Royal Court and the Jersey Court of Appeal that the island’s courts did have the power to seize the apartment under the Proceeds of Crime Law.

The other two appeals were brought by the Attorney General against decisions made by the Jersey Court of Appeal.

In the first, the Judicial Committee decided that the Appeal Court was wrong to say that Credit Suisse – which held the mortgage on the Singapore property – could assign its rights under the mortgage to a third party.

The Judicial Committee decided the Appeal Court was also wrong to order that the Indonesian Ministry of Justice could be liable to a costs order in relation to proceedings.

Commenting on the decisions, the Attorney General said: "The judgment of ... the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is significant and helpful in clarifying important aspects of Jersey’s financial crime legislation."