draining development.pdf - Khazar University

426 Draining Development?In October 2006, a criminal trial of Mohammed Abacha began inVaduz, Liechtenstein. Because in absentia criminal proceedings do notexist in Liechtenstein, and Mohammed Abacha did not appear at the firsthearing, the proceedings have been converted into autonomous forfeitureproceedings, targeting the US$200 million frozen in Liechtenstein.At the end of the proceedings, Nigeria, as victim of the crimes, shouldagain be entitled to the forfeiture proceeds. There have been legal obstaclesto the process both in Liechtenstein and Nigeria, but it is hoped theywill be resolved soon.The United Kingdom. Virtually no action was taken by the U.K. authoritiesfollowing Nigeria’s request for mutual legal assistance that was lodgedin June 2000. The Financial Services Authority, which was involved in theearly part of the enquiry in the United Kingdom, only reprimanded thebanks involved in laundering US$1.2 billion through the City of London;it took no steps to initiate a domestic criminal investigation into moneylaundering, nor would it disclose the names of the banks involved. 14When the Home Secretary finally announced that an investigation wouldbe undertaken, the Abachas challenged the decision by way of judicialreview. They failed, but another three years were to pass before the U.K.authorities announced they were ready to transmit to Nigeria the evidencethey had gathered; at which point, the Abachas requested a judicialreview of the decision to transmit. They failed again, but the evidenceregarding the targeted accounts, which had, for the most part, beenclosed in the meanwhile, was ultimately only transmitted by the U.K.authorities in December 2004 and was insufficiently complete to allowoutgoing transfers to be traced.In September 2001, frustrated by the lack of progress on the officialfront, Nigeria’s counsel acted. Separate civil proceedings, making proprietaryclaims on behalf of Nigeria to the monies, were commenced in Londonagainst more than 100 defendants. The embezzlement was claimedof US$2 billion from the CBN under the false pretense that the monieswere needed for security purposes. The monies were said by Nigeria to beheld on constructive trust for the state. The civil proceedings sought andobtained freezing and disclosure orders against the first 20-odd respondents(all banks) of their books and records, in particular bank statements,relating to the accounts held in the names of the remaining 90