Key Highlights
- The High Court dismissed Mohameds’ bid to win back their cambio licence.
- Judge Damone Younge cited sanctions by OFAC and the applicants’ sanctioned status as reasons for the decision.
- The court ordered the Mohameds to pay GY$250,000 in costs to the Bank of Guyana by April 10, 2026.
- The case highlights the impact of international sanctions on local business operations.
High Court’s Decision
High Court Judge Damone Younge dismissed Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed’s legal bid to reclaim their foreign exchange dealer’s licence. The decision, made in the Guyana High Court on March 5, 2026, was based on the applicants’ inclusion on the SDN list by OFAC.
The judge pointed out that “The appearance of the Applicants on the SDN (Specially Designated Nationals) list would and has, in this Court’s view, negatively impacted whatever good character the applicants may have enjoyed prior to the imposition of the OFAC sanction and at the time they were issued the licence.”
Impact of Sanctions
The case underscores the significant impact that international sanctions can have on local businesses. The revocation of the Mohameds’ licence was done in accordance with the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act, which states that the Central Bank may grant or refuse a licence based on an applicant’s character and antecedents.
OFAC issued sanctions against the Mohameds on June 11, 2024. The bank promptly followed suit by revoking their licence on June 13, 2025. Justice Younge emphasized that the Bank of Guyana had “every right and obligation” to consider the applicants’ sanctioned status and revoke their licence if they were deemed no longer “fit and proper.”
Legal Costs and Delay
The court ordered Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed to pay GY$250,000 in costs to the Bank of Guyana by April 10, 2026. Justice Younge also noted that the Mohameds were guilty of undue delay in instituting their legal proceedings challenging the revocation of their license. The case was filed one year after the revocation and long after the licence would have expired on December 31, 2024.
Justice Younge stated that “An expressed ‘intention’ to do something is not a ‘final, non-reviewable’ decision to do it.” She noted that no explicit revocation was mentioned in the June 12, 2024 letter and that any other interpretation of its contents cannot reasonably be sustained.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with international sanctions. It also highlights the complexities involved when local businesses are caught in the crossfire of global economic policies. The Mohameds might have thought they could fight their way back, but Justice Younge saw through it all.
