UPND govt has Taken over Tasila Lungu’s farm worth K8.8million
“It doesn’t help to say “I was helped by my father”, what the court needs is credible evidence to show the money trail, in the case in casu, there is no money trail”.
The above quote is part of the judgement which saw the forfeiture to the State of former President Edgar Lungu’s daughter Tasila.
Yesterday, the K13.9million farm belonging to Ms Lungu.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC) ruled that the farm was a candidate for the forfeiture because evidence shows, on a balance of probabilities, that it is a proceed of crime.
Ms Lungu also failed to present sufficient proof supporting the claim that she had other economic activities which could have been the legitimate sources of money used to purchase and develop the farm.
Three judges ruled the Chawama lawmaker never presented a financial trail showing that the money used to develop the farm was gifted by her father as alleged.
“We are satisfied that the applicant [Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] has established on a balance of probabilities that the property cited herein is a proceed of crime,”.
The verdict delivered by judges Susan Wanjelani, Pixie Yangailo, and Vincent Siloka.
This is in a case Director of Public Prosecutions Gilbert Phiri had filed a non-conviction-based motion to have Sinda farm F/2278, forfeited to the State because it was acquired using proceeds of crime.
Through the the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), the State submitted that the farm, which has fish ponds constructed at K13, 950, 378.83 was way beyond Ms Mwansa’s income.
DEC senior investigations officer Emmanuel Khondwe stated that there was cogent evidence suggesting that the farm was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime and should be forfeited.
Mr Khondwe submitted that his investigations showed that Ms Mwansa had no known income prior to June 11, 2015, to August 31, 2021.
But in her defence, Ms Lungu contended that she acquired the farm at K300, 000 and claimed she was being maliciously investigated because she engaged in other economic activities.
She accused the State of inflating the price of the farm because structures on it were not developed.
But her defence was not enough to convince the court.
“We say so because it has been established through investigations carried out by the applicant that the interested party herein had no other income generating activities before 2015 and that her known economic activities were between June 11, 2015 to August 31, 2021”.
“The total earnings of the interested party during the period in question amounted to K154, 200, which is far insufficient to have purchased and developed the farm”.
Judge Siloka further found that Ms Mwansa never had any other economic activity as claimed, other than being councillor.
“The interested party has not provided any proof to show that she paid tax; and therefore run any business let alone legally”.
In absence of such proof, the only reasonable inference drawn is that Ms Lungu may have run some business but evaded tax, which is a serious offence,
“It therefore follows that the property acquired through the said proceeds becomes tainted property liable to be forfeited to the State, as per section 2 of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act”.
The court wondered where she got the money to buy and develop the farm since she failed to avail a money paper trail.
“When analysed against the value of the property K8, 849,098, showed a whopping variation of K7, 972,297.92”.
“We are made to wonder where the interested party got the money. Did the interested party get the money from the father, former Republican President?”.
(Mwebantu, Wednesday, September 18th, 2024)