Kenyan court freezes Burundian firm’s $274,000 in money-laundering case

A three-judge bench ordered that that the substantive appeal be heard within 60 days.

The dispute arose after ARA sought to have the funds forfeited to the Kenyan government, alleging that investigations launched in March 2024, following intelligence reports, uncovered what it described as a money-laundering scheme involving cross-border transfers designed to disguise the origin and movement of illicit funds.

According to investigators, the company received $350,000 from a foreign jurisdiction before making transactions they considered suspicious, prompting the agency to institute forfeiture proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Pocamla).

However, the High Court dismissed the forfeiture application in June 2025, ruling that the agency had failed to prove that the money constituted proceeds of crime.

The court found that investigators had not independently verified documents produced by the company, including those relating to a World Bank-funded infrastructure contract, and had therefore failed to establish their case on a balance of probabilities.

EIS Afrika Group maintained that the funds originated from its Burundian affiliate, EIS Company SPRL, which is implementing a World Bank-funded project to construct and equip the Kavimvira Border Post in South Kivu Province, on the border between Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The company said banking restrictions in Burundi prompted it to open an account in Kenya to facilitate international payments linked to the project, including the purchase of construction equipment. It also said it had cooperated with investigators by providing documents explaining the source and intended use of the funds.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the ARA appealed, arguing that the trial judge had relied on inadmissible evidence, imposed an unduly high evidentiary threshold and misinterpreted the law governing preservation orders.

The agency further argued that unless the preservation orders remained in force, the money could be withdrawn before the appeal was determined, rendering the proceedings nugatory.

The appeal centred on the interpretation of Section 97 of Pocamla, with the agency arguing that preservation orders automatically remain in force once an appeal has been filed, while the company maintained that they lapse unless renewed by the court.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the agency, holding that Section 97 was intended to ensure that assets under investigation remain preserved throughout the appellate process to prevent their transfer or dissipation before a final determination.

Although the judges acknowledged the general principle that courts do not ordinarily stay negative orders dismissing a suit, they held that the special provisions of Pocamla justified maintaining the preservation orders. They said releasing the money before the appeal was heard could render the proceedings futile if the agency ultimately succeeds.