FIREARMS dealers Brent Thomas and Hugh Leong Poi have been successful in their lawsuits against the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) over information it received from several financial institutions in 2022 on them and their dealerships.

The FIU’s director cannot use any of the financial information he received on the two and their companies, by court order. The FIU has regulatory responsibility for anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism and falls under the Ministry of Finance.

The two questioned the constitutionality of the FIU's move around October 2022 to ask various institutions for financial information on some 35 individuals and 17 businesses associated with the legal firearms business.

They filed separate constitutional claims seeking several declarations and orders. Among those orders is the destruction of the information obtained by the FIU on them and their businesses, Specialist Shooters Training Centre and Sport Outlet Ltd. They argued that the request by the director of the FIU was ultra vires.

On July 26, Justice Marissa Robertson declared certain sections of the FIU Act and regulations to be unconstitutional in the absence of the director receiving a suspicious transaction report (STP) or suspicious activity report (SAR), and “not reasonably justifiable in a society that has proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.”

Robertson also declared that sections of the FIU Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act were unconstitutional.

Concerning Thomas and Leong Poi’s assertions, she declared that the FIU director's request for their financial information without an STP or SAR was also unconstitutional.

She further declared that the FIU director’s request was not authorised by law. She quashed the decision to make the request.

Robertson also granted an injunction restraining the FIU director from using any of the information he received on the two, since those requests were not based on an STR or SAR and were not in keeping with provisions of the FIU Act.

Thomas and Leong Poi had asked for the FIU to disclose a copy of each request, but the judge refused these.

In their claims, Thomas and Leong Poi contended that the FIU director must first receive a SAR or STR, analyse them, and assess that an offence has taken place or that proceeds of a crime may be located in the jurisdiction. They argued that failing to observe the conditions deprived them of the right to protection of the law. They also argued certain portions of the FIU Act and regulations gave rise to the risk of systemic unfairness, since the FIU Act was silent on the need for judicial oversight of the director’s powers.

In her ruling, Robertson said, “The notions of justice, fairness, the rule of law and the right to be protected from acts by the Government or public bodies which arbitrarily or unfairly deprive individuals of their basic constitutional rights require...a basis for their actions which tends to infringe those rights.

“In the absence of a basis the prote