The High Court has ordered the forfeiture of Sh14.6 million held in the account of Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP after finding the money was proceeds of crime.
The funds are linked to forged documents, suspicious payments from Invest & Grow Sacco and a person who falsely posed as a lawyer.
While ruling on the forfeiture suit filed by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), the court directed that the money, together with the accrued interest, be transferred from the law firm’s I&M Bank account to the Criminal Asset Recovery Fund.
“This court enters judgment for the applicant against the respondent that Sh14.6 million plus all accrued interest held under the respondent’s name are proceeds of crime and are hereby forfeited to the state,” it said.
The respondent did not file any response or participate in the proceedings despite being served with court papers and offered no explanation for the source of the money, leaving the ARA’s evidence unchallenged.
The court said ARA had proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the funds were proceeds of crime.
The case arose from investigations launched by ARA after it received information in March 2025 that the firm’s bank account had received suspicious payments from Invest & Grow Sacco, reportedly for legal and consultancy services supported by documents later found to be forged.
According to the agency, the firm’s managing partner represented himself as an advocate of the High Court and operated Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP and another entity, Eristic & Qlance Advocates, despite not being a licensed lawyer.
ARA told the court it opened a file to investigate suspected fraud, forgery and money laundering linked to the partner’s acquisition of property and transactions through entities associated with him.
Investigators said analysis of the company’s bank account showed substantial inflows followed by rapid transfers, mobile money transactions and cash withdrawals, which they said were intended to conceal the origin and ownership of the money.
ARA told the court that Sh10 million was deposited into Birus Chambers’s account, while another Sh8 million was paid into an account belonging to Qlance Intakes Ltd, purportedly for tax consultancy rendered to the sacco.
ARA added that the payments were unsupported by legitimate business activity and formed part of a fraudulent scheme.
It said investigators uncovered forged documents used to justify withdrawals, including vehicle sale agreements, invoices, logbooks and documents relating to vehicles.
It said letters from relevant parties and searches conducted at the National Transport and Safety Authority established that some vehicles were not owned by the said sellers, while others had no connection to the transactions.
Investigators said entities linked to the firm’s managing partner had no staff, offices, tax compliance records or demonstrable capacity to provide the legal and consultancy services for which they received the money.
millions of shillings.
ARA further said the chief executive officer of Invest & Grow Sacco -ACCO had limited knowledge of the respondent and indicated that due diligence may not have been undertaken before the payments were made.
Since the law firm did not participate in the proceedings or file any response to challenge the allegations, the judge said the only issue before the court was whether the money constituted proceeds of crime and whether the money should be forfeited to the State.
"The Agency need not prove the actual crime committed; it is sufficient to show unlawful conduct," the court said.
It added: "Once the applicant establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the assets in question are proceeds of crime, a duty is cast on the respondent to prove that he obtained the funds lawfully."
The judge noted that the respondent did not explain being served with the proceedings.
"In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is my view that the applicant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Sh14.6 million preserved in the respondent's account constitutes proceeds of crime," the court said.
The judgment follows recent guidance by the Supreme Court, cited by the High Court, that once ARA establishes that assets are probably proceeds of crime in civil forfeiture proceedings, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to explain their lawful source.
