[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <CAPjmBy3v_vR_HjrwryhP5apY8=PmNEpK1yjQPYMWOsfZqrjuxQ at mail.gmail.com>
Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:


>I have been following this saga for a few days now and I can't help but

>wonder (And this is aside from discussing the case of Cloud Innovation and

>AfriNIC) I want to address the process of Mauritian law.

>

>How does a court in Mauritius freeze the bank accounts of another company

>through ex parte proceedings?


That is rather a serious mystery to me too.  I guess that the court was
worried... as some courts might reasonably worry in the case of some
defendants... that *if* the defendant company was given some pre-notice
of the impending freeze of its bank accounts, then the organization might
try to evade the effects of such a freeze by quickly withdrawing all of
its funds and placing those funds somewhere else.

According to the following page which describes the typical procedures as
they occur under the U.S. judicial system...

  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/frozen-bank-accounts.html

     "Most creditors need to file a lawsuit and get a judgment against
     you before freezing your bank account. If the creditor wins the suit,
     the court issues a money judgment to the creditor. This money judgment
     serves as proof of the amount owed and protects debtors from having
     money taken that they don't owe. Once a creditor has the judgment
     against you, if you haven't taken steps to pay the judgment or agreed
     to a payment schedule for satisfying the debt, the judgment creditor
     can request that the court issue an order that directs the bank to
     freeze your account."

I believe that the procedures are the same in most civilized countries,
i.e. a party must *first* win a case and only *then* they may arrange to
have the other party's bank accounts frozen or seized.

I do not want to pre-judge the situation based on limited information, but
offhand, and based on what few facts we have, it would seem to be reasonable
to speculate that Mauritian law is different from U.S. law (and the law in
many other jurisdictions) in that Mauritian law apparently does not actually
require a party to win damages in court before a bank account of an opposing
party may be frozen.  (Whatever different rule the Mauritians are using with
respect to asset freezes, it must surely be an absolute delight for any and
all Mauritian plaintiffs!)

Whether that is the best way to run a national legal system or not is,
I suppose, in the eye of the beholder.  All I can say for sure is that at
this moment I am really quite glad that I personally do not own any bank
accounts in Mauritius.


>How else do you interpreter this? A court

>giving an unprecedented ex parte ruling against an African Organization in

>favor of a Hongkong-based organization who we are all clear is a purveyor

>of African IP Addresses to organizations outside of Africa as its core

>business model.


I am sorry to have to correct you sir, but I believe that there is at least
one serious inaccuracy in your comment above.

To the best of my knowledge, Cloud Innovation, Ltd. is *not* "Hong Kong
based" in the sense that its home jurisdiction... the jurisdiction in
which it is actually incorporated... is, I believe, the Seychelles Islands,
not Hong Kong.

A Hong Kong based legal entity would never have qualified to become a member
of AFRINIC.  As far as I know, AFRINIC memberships have only been granted to
legal entities that are actually "domiciled" within the AFRINIC geographical
region.  (Hong Kong is quite clearly outside of that region, while the
Seychelles Islands are most definitely within the region.)

It appears that at one point in time, Cloud Innovation, Ltd. may also
have existed as a Mauritian legal entity, however the Mauritian legal
entity with that name appears to have been wound up some time ago,
which is probably just as well since, as I understand it, "international
companies" may be formed in Mauritius, even if they have only very limited
physical presence there (and pay minimal or no taxes there) however the
downside is that such "international" Mauritian companies are not allowed,
under law, to actually conduct business with -actual- Mauritian resident
companies, for example, AFRINIC.  Thus, an "offshore" company called "Cloud
Innovation, Ltd." and incorporated in the Seychelles Islands is rather
vastly superior to an offshore company called Cloud Innovation, Ltd." and
incorporated in Mauritius, at least if the company wishes/wished to transact
business with some actual Mauritian-resident company such as AFRINIC.

    https://opencorporates.com/companies/mu/C115736


>Let's put aside all this hullabaloo of ohh...The board didn't do

>this...Oooh the board should have done this! and let's address the elephant

>in the room. Everything else is a sideshow.


The freezing of the bank accounts is most certainly a truly startling
development and one that would most certainly NOT have happened in the
United States, or, I expect, in most other civilized countries, at least
not prior to a full trial on the merits and the actual conclusion of the
over-arching legal case.

I have previously mentioned other reasons that I and others might have
for harboring displeasure with respect to the Mauritian legal system.
There is no need for me to repeat those now, and in fact I have been
cautioned against doing so again out of concern that either I or some
AFRRINIC staff members might, as a result, be convicted of the heinous
offense of "disrespecting the court" and that we might thus find ourselves
dragged away in chains to what is no doubt some special Mauritian dark
and dank dungeon specially reserved for offenders of such a unique caliber.


Regards,
rfg