DPP Gilbert Phiri argues that the magistrate made legal errors in arriving at the decision. Phiri outlines five grounds of appeal, asserting that the court misconstrued the evidence when determining that the money in Lubinda’s dollar account was not linked to criminal activities.
Phiri contends that the court also erred in accepting Lubinda’s explanation regarding the funds in his account and in ruling that a payment of US$50,000 to Kingsland City for property purchase was not tainted. Additionally, Phiri argues that the court wrongly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable suspicion and did not prove the offense’s elements.
Phiri emphasizes his intention to be present during the appeal proceedings.
The case against Lubinda involved allegations of receiving US$50,000 from China Africa Cotton Limited and US$180,000 from Qingdao Ruichang Cotton Industrial Company Limited, both sums considered proceeds of crime. He was also accused of possessing a house in Kingsland City valued at US$260,000, suspected of being derived from criminal activities.
However, Magistrate Sanford Ngobola acquitted Lubinda last month, ruling that the properties were lawfully acquired and not proceeds of crime. Ngobola determined that the funds in Lubinda’s dollar account were related to a loan agreement between his company, Highview Investment, and Qingdao Ruichang Cotton Company.
Ngobola concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, allegations regarding money in Lubinda’s bank account at ABSA Bank totaling US$280,000 were not substantiated as proceeds of crime.
Main Image : Southern Africa legislation Centre