By: Staff Writer
September 17, Colombo (LNW): Counsel for the first suspect in a foreign currency transfer case have urged the Attorney General to direct the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) to conduct a comprehensive investigation into an apparent contradiction between the police’s original allegations and a subsequent report submitted to Court.
The lawyers, M.M. Zuhair PC and Priyantha Nawana PC, representing Jiffry Mohamed of A Y Investments Impex Ltd., Bankshall Street, Colombo 11, have questioned why the investigation initially alleged that goods paid for through bank remittances had not been imported into Sri Lanka, while paragraph 9 of the FCID report dated 20 August 2026 reportedly states that the goods had in fact arrived and been cleared by Sri Lanka Customs.
The discrepancy, they argue, raises questions about the evidentiary foundation of the allegations and whether the investigation has sufficiently examined the actual movement of goods, the import documentation and the Customs clearance process.
According to the lawyers’ letter to the Attorney General, the next step should be a detailed examination of the goods received and cleared by the importers. They have also called for scrutiny of the Customs process, particularly the police assertion that the goods were undervalued at the Sri Lankan end.
The counsel have asked whether Customs cleared the goods after accepting the alleged undervaluation and whether reduced Customs duty, Value Added Tax (VAT), Social Security Contribution Levy (SSCL) and other taxes were collected. If the goods were undervalued, they argue, investigators must determine whether the Inland Revenue Department was deprived of legitimate revenue that should have benefited the country and its citizens.
This shifts the focus of the case beyond the movement of foreign currency to the accuracy of import declarations and the possible fiscal consequences of Customs assessments.
The lawyers have further maintained that the transactions were conducted under “The Special Import Licence and Payment Regulations No. 1 of 2011,” made under the Import and Exports (Control) Act No. 1 of 1969. They state that the regulations permitted licensed commercial banks to make advance telegraphic transfers to overseas exporters, subject to the prescribed requirements.
Their argument is that the use of advance payments, by itself, does not establish an offence or irregularity, particularly where funds were transmitted through licensed banks operating under Central Bank supervision.
However, the central investigative question remains whether the transactions complied with the relevant regulations and whether the goods corresponding to the payments were actually exported, imported and properly declared.
Counsel have alleged that police have not meaningfully investigated the source of funds deposited into the suspect’s company or his 34 associate companies. They say the suspect had provided investigators with details of the importers’ brokers who deposited the money, but that these transactions had not been adequately examined.
They have also questioned whether investigators examined the overseas exporters who received funds transmitted through 13 approved Sri Lankan banks, including State banks.
The lawyers have requested a “just, fair and complete investigation,” arguing that the suspect, who has been in remand for a third month, would be better placed to assist investigators if released on bail.
The case now raises a broader question: whether the investigation will establish the complete chain from advance payment and banking compliance to overseas export, Customs clearance, valuation and tax collection before drawing conclusions about alleged money laundering
