JUDGMENT

P. Kumararatnam, J.

The above-named Accused-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was indicted by the Attorney General in the High Court of Colombo under Sections 3(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 05 of 2006 as amended by Act No. 40 of 2011 for executing a transaction that is depositing Rs.2,500,000/- being the proceeds of the crime of Heroin Trafficking in a fixed deposit at the Edirisinghe Trust Investment Finance Company.

Following the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000,000/-. The fine is subjected to a default sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

Additionally, acting under Section 13 of the Money Laundering Act, the Rs.2,500,000/- cash deposit was confiscated by and was vested in the State.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Appellant preferred this appeal to this court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant informed this court that the Appellant has given consent to argue this matter in his absence. At the hearing, the Appellant was connected via Zoom platform from prison.

The following Grounds of Appeal were raised on behalf of the Appellant.

1. Did the learned High Court Judge err by not considering the attempt by police to merge the fixed deposit which forms the subject matter of the charge with allegedly tainted money to cause undue prejudice to the Appellant?

2. Did the learned High Court Judge misdirect himself by failing to consider the plausibility of the Appellant’s explanation to rebut the presumption, within the perspective of the socio-economic standing of the Appellant?

3. Did the learned High Court Judge misdirect himself by not considering the denial of a fair trial to the Appellant due to:

a) Material irregularities caused by the exclusion of material evidence from the defence that has been used mainly to construct the police narrative alleging a nexus between the Appellant and the international drug trafficker Wele Suda.

b) Non availability of an effective legal representation to the Appellant in a situation in which his personal legitimate assets have been seized and he is financially constrained.

Background of the case albeit briefly is as follows:

The Appellant was indicted under Section 3(1) of the Money Laundering Act for depositing Rs.2,5000,000/- which he was unable to explain as to how he came to be in possession of.

According to PW1, the Assistant General Manager of the ETI Finance Company, confirmed that the Appellant had opened a fixed deposit on 31.01.2012 at the Kiribathgoda Branch for Rs.2,500,000/- for a period of one year. The fact that the said deposit was a joint deposit was admitted by the defence under Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC).

PW2, the mother of the Appellant had stated that when she went abroad, the Appellant was only 15 years old. She had worked for 8 years and the Appellant had been working in a poultry farm. Later the Appellant had engaged in business related to coconut trade using a lorry bought by PW2. She was not aware about the income generated from the said coconut business.

PW6, the Grama Sevaka of the area could remember the Appellant selling coconut. However, PW6 confirmed that the Appellant did not have a registered coconut business.

Three bank officials gave evidence about the accounts maintained by the Appellant in their respective banks and this was admitted by the Appellant under Section 420 of the CPC.

PW10 and PW11 confirmed that they had deposited money into the Appellant’s account several times. PW11 went on to say that he knew the Appellant’s engagement in drug related business.

The Appellant in his dock statement stated that he had worked for 5 years in a poultry farm, engaged in coconut business for 4 years, had lent money to people on interest for 5 years and received financial support from his mother for about 10 years. He ad