The Kenyan government has been granted permission by the High Court to seize a significant love gift worth Sh102 million, sent to 23-year-old student Felesta Nyamathira Njoroge by her billionaire boyfriend residing abroad.

This follows a momentous ruling delivered by Justice Esther Maina on Thursday allowing the Kenyan government to confiscate the sum deposited in two Co-operative bank accounts belonging to Felista.

This colossal gift, sent to her by her billionaire paramour has been deemed the product of illicit money laundering.

The presiding judge Justice Esther Maina issued the order for the confiscation of these funds due to the lack of explanation and disclosure regarding their source.

Read More

  1. Co-op Bank posts 4.4 per cent profit rise to Sh19.2 billion in Q3 amid digital growth
  2. Blow to medical interns as court upholds stipend cuts amid fiscal limitation
  3. Multiple Hauliers (E.A) Limited enters insolvency as Official Receiver takes over

The generous benefactor, renowned Belgian YouTube crypto personality Merc De Mesel, had been given ample opportunity to account for the origins of his fortune, which he often bestows upon young women across the globe but unfortunately, he failed to do so.

Maina, in her landmark judgment, emphasized that the philanthropist had been provided with the chance to clarify the manner in which he amassed his wealth, a chance he squandered.

In light of this absence of explanation, Maina highlighted that the state was benefiting from the proceeds of the clandestine transfer of funds initiated by Mesel.

Upon reviewing the evidence presented in court by both the state and the involved parties, Justice Maina, in granting the application filed by the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) to designate the funds as proceeds of criminal activity, confirmed the presence of conspicuous money laundering.

"I have analysed and gone through the evidence tendered by the boyfriend and it did not show the source of the funds that were transferred to the Kenyan girlfriend," Maina said.

She further asserted that in the absence of disclosure pertaining to the origin of the funds, the most plausible inference is that money laundering is involved.

Consequently, the court had no choice but to order the forfeiture of the funds held in the two bank accounts, compelling their transfer to the possession of the state.