HC upholds Criminal Court's decision to hear charges against Alhan and brothers

High Court of Maldives has decided that the case against Kings Capital Holdings' Managing Director Alhan Fahumy and two of his younger siblings, for allegedly introducing an illegal investment scheme and taking money from various individuals, can be heard in court.

The state filed 13 charges against Alhan and his brothers Shahubaan and Shazbaan Fahumy in the case, which was appealed by the brothers in Criminal Court. They claimed that individual responsibility would not need to be borne for the acts carried out by the company.

However, the Criminal Court ruled to pursue the charges, which was then appealed by Alhan at the High Court. Therefore, High Court ruled to uphold the Criminal Court's decision.

High Court's decision said there were no errors, and therefore, no legal reason to change the Criminal Court's decision when considering the case as a whole based on Alhan's filings. The court also noted that there is enough evidence in the case, and that the weight of the evidence has to be decided by pursuing the entire case and debating on the evidence.

The three brothers also requested the Prosecutor General's Office to review their charges when the office recently opened up the opportunity. However, PG Office also decided against their favour.

Alhan's motion said the company is an independent entity, responsible for its own actions, as clearly stated in the Companies Act.

Alhan's lawyer said that although it is a criminal offense under Article 75 of the Companies Act, the company should be the entity prosecuted, pointing out that the same principles were used to prosecute Sun company in the MMPRC corruption case and Amin Construction in the FAM corruption case.

Since the charges also allege that the acts were committed by the company, charges also need to be raised against the company, the lawyer said, adding that the shareholders need not be held personally responsible or made answerable.

Shahubaan and Shazbaan's lawyer Azima Shakoor also said that the corporate veil is established by law and individuals cannot be held responsible for a company's actions. It can only be done when the corporate veil is taken off in cases where a conviction of fraud and scams are established, Azima said.

However, prosecutor Hawwa Naahy said the charges were not related to a crime committed by a company but to a crime committed by the three individuals in the name of the company, which would require them to take individual responsiblity.

The prosecutor said it was not necessary to hold a separate hearing in the name of removing the corporate veil to prove the allegations. She said evidence had been presented to the extent that the individuals should be held responsible for the crime.

She also added that the judge, when deciding on the case, would be able to determine the extent to which the brothers would have to assume individual responsibility in the case, citing similar previous prosecutions against individuals. Naahy highlighted a case where charges were filed against a company's Managing Director, Ahmed Moosa (Ammaty), in the Sealife case.