This case concerns the embezzlement of public funds and the laundering of the money obtained from that crime. The procedures were first to implement the request of the Public Prosecution in the Sultanate of Oman to seize funds suspected of being the subject of the crime, until those funds were returned in implementation of a final ruling issued by the competent courts in the requesting country. There was no local prosecution in the country requesting legal assistance, while the assistance received was implemented. The seizure was made at the request of the Public Prosecution in the requesting country (Oman).
Public Prosecution in the Sultanate of Oman
The returned assets were represented in two bond portfolios at the bank, the market value of one of which was 2,437,540 US dollars, and the second was 277,412 US dollars. The total amount of the returned assets was 2,714,952 USD.
The Bahrain Public Prosecution began these procedures based on a mandate from the High Criminal Court, in charge of rogatory commissions and MLA requests received from foreign parties. The implementation was carried out in coordination with the FIU at the Ministry of Interior.
The legal basis for asset recovery in Bahrain was that the funds were returned in implementation of the conviction and confiscation ruling as the legal basis for recovering the funds. A judicial decision was issued to place the funds in their existing condition at the disposal of the Public Prosecution in the requesting country upon its request, and the bank was notified accordingly.
The legal basis for international cooperation was implemented based on the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation, the Agreement on the Implementation of Judgments, MLAs, and Judicial Announcements in the Countries of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), and the United Nations Convention against Corruption as a legal basis for judicial cooperation.
Factors that helped with asset recovery were the existence of a sufficient national legislative and institutional structure to implement requests for assistance in general, and the existence of coordination between the concerned authorities. The FIU at the Ministry of Interior had a prominent role in implementing the decisions issued, whether at the stage of seizing funds or executing the ruling.
Assets returned
All funds were returned in implementation of the ruling issued by the competent courts in the Sultanate of Oman, without the need of an agreement between the two parties.