Wakilii

Uganda v Ochown Henry alias Malong Tong a.k.a Papa and Others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCACD 5 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for restraining and preservation orders over funds and properties suspected to be proceeds of crime
Decision
Restraining and preservation orders granted for six months to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds of crime pending investigation and potential confiscation proceedings

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted ex parte restraining and preservation orders over funds and properties suspected to be proceeds of crime. The court held that the applicant established reasonable grounds to believe the respondents were involved in obtaining money by false pretences, illicit enrichment, and money laundering. The court found that USD 221,000 held in a Stanbic Bank account and various properties registered in the names of the respondents or their associates were tainted property. The orders were granted to prevent dissipation of assets pending investigation and potential confiscation proceedings.

Outcome

Restraining and preservation orders granted for six months to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds of crime pending investigation and potential confiscation proceedings

Facts

The complainant, Omulen Levy Lawrence, a businessman, was defrauded of USD 2,568,566 in an investment scam. The 1st respondent and an accomplice falsely claimed to be wealthy investors and convinced the complainant to invest in a land deal. The complainant deposited approximately USD 2,100,000 in instalments for equipment and machinery, and an additional USD 400,000 for alleged cash transfers from South Sudan. The complainant received boxes claimed to contain cash which proved to be counterfeit dollars. The 1st respondent was arrested and charged with obtaining money by false pretences, conspiracy, and forgery of currency notes. Investigations revealed that USD 221,000 of the stolen funds was deposited into a Stanbic Bank account held by M/S B.M.S General Trading Limited, whose directors are the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Various properties were registered in the names of the respondents or their associates during the period of the fraud, including land parcels, apartment blocks, a motor vehicle, and a residential bungalow. The 1st and 8th respondents had no known source of income commensurate with these acquisitions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has met the legal threshold for the issuance of restraining and preservation orders over funds and properties reasonably suspected to be tainted.
  2. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondents are involved in obtaining money by false pretences, illicit enrichment and money laundering.
  3. Whether the impugned Stanbic Bank Account holds funds reasonably believed to be proceeds of crime.
  4. Whether the listed properties are reasonably believed to be proceeds of crime or under the control of the Respondents beyond their lawful means.
  5. Whether failure to preserve the funds and properties will defeat the ends of justice.
  6. Whether the Court has the power to grant the orders sought.

Orders

  • An order hereby issues to the Stanbic Bank and holders of Stanbic Bank Account No. 903000807260, in the name of M/S B.M.S General Trading Limited, restricting the operation of and disposal of funds held in this bank account to the extent that the account maintains a minimum balance of two hundred and twenty-one thousand United States dollars ($221,000) at all times.
  • An order hereby issues restraining any and all persons in possession or connected to the property listed, from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with it: (a) Vacant land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 8605 at Namugongo; (b) Vacant land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 2763 at Namugongo; (c) Property comprised in Kyadondo Mailo Block 222 Plot 3654; (d) Property located Kyanja comprised in Mailo Block 195 Plot 781; (e) Property in Kungu comprised in Kyadondo Mailo, Block 194 Plot 3041; (f) Motor vehicle registration number UA 536 BM; (g) Property in Nakwero village comprised in Block 172 Plot 5462.
  • Unless otherwise varied or revoked, the orders herein shall expire after six months.

Rules and key headnotes

Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Competence of Application
An application for a restraining order under the Anti-Money Laundering Act must be initiated by an authorised officer, defined as a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police authorised in writing by the Inspector General of Police. An application for an order to freeze a bank account under the Anti-Corruption Act must be initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Inspector General of Government. Officers of the ODPP may exercise the powers of the DPP under general or specified instructions pursuant to Article 120(4) of the Constitution.
Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Standard of Proof
The standard of proof for granting a restraining order over property suspected to be proceeds of crime is not beyond reasonable doubt but on a balance of probabilities. The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the property is tainted. The test of reasonableness is objective: the court must look at the evidence holistically to determine whether a reasonable investigator would have entertained a belief that a crime has been committed and that the property represents proceeds therefrom.
Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Tainted Property
Property is tainted when it was used in connection with the commission of an offence or represents proceeds of such an offence. Proceeds include any property or financial gain obtained from the commission of a crime, as well as property or income derived from such property at any time after the offence. The property must have a direct link to the alleged criminal conduct. Where property is registered in the names of third parties, the court may find it tainted if the evidence indicates that effective control and beneficial ownership lie with the person under investigation.
Anti-Corruption Act — Bank Account Restrictions — Minimum Balance
Under section 34 of the Anti-Corruption Act, a restraining order on a bank account should specify a limit to be maintained as a minimum balance. The restrictions aim to ensure a minimum balance is available if the suspect is convicted and ordered to compensate victims, while avoiding needlessly freezing resources that should be circulating within the economy. Where a bank account holds sums in excess of the amount allegedly deposited by the complainant, the order shall be restricted to the targeted amount.
Anti-Money Laundering — Restraining Orders — Duration and Safeguards
Unless good grounds are provided, restraining orders granted under the Anti-Money Laundering Act shall remain valid for six months from the date of grant. This serves as a safeguard against arbitrary action. The order should be served on the accused, the bank, and any person who is affected.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • R. L Jain Ltd v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2025)
  • Uganda v Asiimwe Anna (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2025)
  • Uganda v Kirumira Daniel Kalinda (Miscellaneous Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • Uganda vs Wamakuyu
  • DPP v Khato Civils (Pty) Ltd and Others (CLCGB 040-16)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Ochown Henry alias Malong Tong a.k.a Papa and Others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 79 of 2025) [2026] UGHCACD 5 (23 February 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.