Carlos Manuel De São Vicente v Public Prosecutor: Release of Funds for Legal Expenses

Carlos Manuel De São Vicente applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for the release of funds seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) to cover legal expenses in Singapore, Switzerland, and Angola. The court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, dismissed the application, finding that De São Vicente had alternative sources of funding available and that the expenses were not exclusively for his legal services.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Carlos Manuel De São Vicente's application to release funds for legal expenses, citing alternative funding sources and exclusivity concerns.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyOpposition to application successfulWon
Daniel Ling of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Eric Hu of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Alan Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Carlos Manuel De São VicenteApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daniel LingAttorney-General’s Chambers
Eric HuAttorney-General’s Chambers
Alan LohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Thio Shen YiTSMP Law Corporation
Phoon WueiTSMP Law Corporation
Neo Zhi Wei EugeneTSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Applicant, Carlos Manuel De São Vicente, had more than a billion US dollars.
  2. The Applicant was the majority shareholder of the leading co-insurance firm in the oil industry of Angola.
  3. The Applicant was convicted of tax offences and money laundering by the Angolan courts.
  4. The Angolan courts found that the Applicant had unlawfully amassed profit from monopolies over the Angolan oil insurance sector.
  5. The Angolan courts found that the Applicant had embezzled more than 1.2 billion US dollars from the country.
  6. Some of the money transferred into the Applicant’s personal bank account in Angola found its way to the Applicant’s Bank of Singapore account.
  7. The Commercial Affairs Department seized the Applicant's Bank of Singapore account, which contained more than USD$558 million.
  8. The Applicant sought the release of S$2,635,865.55 from his Bank of Singapore account to pay for his legal expenses.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Carlos Manuel De São Vicente v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 50 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 143
  2. Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General, , [2017] 2 SLR 850
  3. Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 4 SLR 1049
  4. Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 3 SLR 487

6. Timeline

DateEvent
AAA Seguros SA granted leading position in handling insurance for the oil industry nationwide in Angola.
Carlos Manuel De São Vicente ordered the transfer of USD$400 million from AAA Seguros accounts to his personal bank account with Banque Syz SA.
Transfers into Carlos Manuel De São Vicente’s Bank of Singapore account were made from the Bank of Singapore account of AAA International.
€750,000 was transferred to Portuguese bank accounts belonging to Carlos Manuel De São Vicente's sons, daughter, and wife.
The Geneva Public Prosecutor’s Office issued freezing orders on the accounts of Carlos Manuel De São Vicente and AAA International held with Banque Syz.
€4,500,000.00 was transferred to Ivo Emanuel Neto De São Vicente’s Portuguese bank account.
The freezing order over Carlos Manuel De São Vicente’s personal bank account was lifted on any amount in excess of USD$855,396,087.28 and €38,493,386.14.
Multiple requests for information were exchanged between the government prosecutors in Switzerland and Angola concerning the assets of Carlos Manuel De São Vicente, his family, and the companies AAA International, AAA Activos LDA and AAA Seguros.
Multiple requests for information were exchanged between the government prosecutors in Switzerland and Angola concerning the assets of Carlos Manuel De São Vicente, his family, and the companies AAA International, AAA Activos LDA and AAA Seguros.
€925,174.00 was transferred in total to the Portuguese bank accounts of Ivo, Antonino, Felicia, and Irene.
€925,174.00 was transferred in total to the Portuguese bank accounts of Ivo, Antonino, Felicia, and Irene.
The Angolan Public Prosecutor placed Carlos Manuel De São Vicente in preventative custody in Luanda, Angola and charged him with offences of embezzlement, money laundering, and tax fraud.
The Commercial Affairs Department seized Carlos Manuel De São Vicente's Bank of Singapore account.
Carlos Manuel De São Vicente was informed in writing of the seizures.
The Commercial Affairs Department was informed by TSMP Law Corporation, acting for Irene Alexandra Da Silva Neto and Ivo Emanuel Neto De São Vicente, that both were willing to extend their full cooperation, although they were unwilling to travel to Singapore.
The Commercial Affairs Department wrote to Irene Alexandra Da Silva Neto and Ivo Emanuel Neto De São Vicente, through TSMP Law Corporation, proposing an interview with both of them via remote communication technology.
The Commercial Affairs Department posed several questions to Carlos Manuel De São Vicente through his Singapore law firm, TSMP Law Corporation.
The Commercial Affairs Department sent a reminder letter to Irene Alexandra Da Silva Neto and Ivo Emanuel Neto De São Vicente.
The Commercial Affairs Department filed a report in respect of the frozen Bank of Singapore accounts as required under s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Written replies provided by Carlos Manuel De São Vicente to the Commercial Affairs Department.
Carlos Manuel De São Vicente was convicted on all charges by the District Court of Luanda and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and a fine.
Further questions were posed by the Commercial Affairs Department.
A further reply was given to the Commercial Affairs Department.
The Magistrate’s Court ordered that the funds in the Bank of Singapore accounts that were seized by the Commercial Affairs Department were to be retained for a further six months until 26 January 2023.
Carlos Manuel De São Vicente applied under s 35(8)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the release of USD$4,900,591.27 from his Bank of Singapore account that had been frozen by the Commercial Affairs Department.
Affidavit of Lye Jia He filed.
A reply to the Commercial Affairs Department through Irene Alexandra Da Silva Neto and Ivo Emanuel Neto’s Singapore counsel TSMP was finally sent.
Applicant’s Submissions dated.
Respondent’s Submissions dated.
Judgment by Vincent Hoong J reserved.
Judgment delivered by Vincent Hoong J.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Release of seized property for legal expenses
    • Outcome: The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of releasing the seized funds, given the availability of alternative funding sources and the lack of exclusivity in the claimed expenses.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Necessity of release
      • Exclusivity of use of funds
      • Reasonableness of fees
      • Expenses already incurred

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Release of funds to pay for legal expenses

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Seizure of Assets

11. Industries

  • Oil and Gas
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralSingapore Court of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the three-step approach to statutory interpretation.
Mustafa Ahunbay v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 1049SingaporeCited for the balancing exercise between the exigencies of the investigation or proceedings and the potential hardship to any person who is prevented from dealing with the property.
Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public ProsecutorSingapore High CourtYesGoldring Timothy Nicholas and others v Public Prosecutor [2013] 3 SLR 487SingaporeCited for the principle that the police’s entitlement to retain lawfully seized evidence for as long as is reasonably necessary is subject to regard for the interests of justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code 2010Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Seized Funds
  • Bank of Singapore account
  • Commercial Affairs Department
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Legal expenses
  • Freezing order
  • Mutual legal assistance
  • Alternative sources of funding
  • Exclusivity
  • Reasonableness

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Seizure of Assets
  • Legal Expenses
  • Release of Funds
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Procedure75
Criminal Law60
Money Laundering60
Asset Recovery50
Embezzlement50
Fraud and Deceit50
Freezing Orders50
White Collar Crime40
Tax Offences40
Mutual Legal Assistance40
International Law30
Banking and Finance30
Banking Law30
Politically Motivated Prosecution30
Civil Litigation20
Fiduciary Duty20
Administrative Law20
Show Trial20
Company Law20
Litigation20
Contract Law15
Confidentiality10

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Procedure
  • Seizure of Assets
  • Legal Expenses