CHINHOYI – The High Court has dismissed an application by two Chinese nationals seeking the release of two gold bars worth more than US$202,000 and US$9,000 in cash seized at the Kariba border, ruling they failed to prove they could lawfully possess the items in Zimbabwe.
The case arose after border authorities discovered two gold bars valued at US$93,857 and US$109,036, together with US$9,000 cash, concealed in a secret compartment between the boot and back seat of a vehicle attempting to leave Zimbabwe for Zambia.
Although the driver, Zhang Jiabo, was acquitted of smuggling and dealing in gold without a licence after a court found he lacked criminal intent, fellow applicant He Chao Qiang later sought the release of the seized bullion, cash and vehicle.
Justice Philda Muzofa sitting at the Chinhoyi High Court upheld the lower court’s refusal to release the assets, finding that documents issued in Zambia did not entitle the applicant to possess or transport the gold in Zimbabwe.
“The applicant failed to establish that he was entitled and could lawfully possess the articles in Zimbabwe,” the judge ruled.
“The documents from Zambia could have proved lawful possession in Zambia but not in Zimbabwe.”
The court said the fact that the gold may have entered Zimbabwe inadvertently was relevant only to the criminal case and not to the separate question of whether the applicant could legally possess the bullion within Zimbabwe.
“Once they were in Zimbabwe, they became subject to the laws of Zimbabwe,” Muzofa said.
The judge also refused to order the release of the vehicle, which contained a hidden compartment used to conceal the gold.
Evidence before the court showed the vehicle had crossed into Zimbabwe 21 times under temporary import permits and belonged to a Zambian company.
“There is sufficient evidence that the 1st applicant and by extension the owner knew about the secret compartments,” the judge said.
“The motor vehicle could not be released and cannot be released. The presence of the secret compartment contravenes the laws of Zimbabwe.”
Muzofa concluded that the vehicle remained liable to forfeiture and dismissed the review application with no order as to costs.
