Court Seizes KSh14.7 Million Linked to Alleged Fake Nairobi Law Firm

A Nairobi law firm that investigators say was built on deception has lost nearly KSh14.7 million to the State after the High Court ruled the money was the proceeds of crime.

This ends one of the most striking civil asset recovery cases involving an entity masquerading as a legal practice.

In a judgement delivered on June 30, the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Division ordered that KSh14,679,139.65, together with all accrued interest, held in an I&M Bank account belonging to Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP, be permanently forfeited to the government and transferred to the Criminal Asset Recovery Fund.

The decision was subsequently published in July Kenya Gazette Notice No. 11434, formally notifying the public of the forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA).

Suspicious Millions

The ruling capped months of investigations by the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), which painted a picture of an elaborate scheme involving alleged forged documents, suspicious consultancy payments, rapid movement of millions of shillings through interconnected accounts, and a man who investigators said falsely presented himself as an advocate of the High Court.

“This alone is enough to justify granting preservation orders, as such business is illegal and any money earned from the same is obvious proceeds of crime,” Justice Benjamin Mwikya Musyoki had observed in an earlier preservation ruling, after investigators alleged that the firm’s manager, David Ironda Lumumba, was not an advocate and that the entity was not registered with the Law Society of Kenya.

The preservation order ultimately paved the way for the substantive forfeiture proceedings decided by Justice Rose Ougo.

According to evidence placed before the court, the Agency launched investigations in March 2025 after receiving intelligence that Invest & Grow SACCO had transferred millions of shillings into Birus Chambers’ account, purportedly for legal and consultancy services.

Yet investigators concluded the supporting contracts and accompanying paperwork had been forged.

Following Money

As investigators followed the money, they said the trail widened dramatically.

Bank analysis allegedly showed approximately KSh10 million flowing into the firm’s account, while another KSh8 million landed in an account operated by Qlance Intakes Ltd, supposedly for tax consultancy services.

Investigators, however, found no legitimate business activity capable of justifying those payments.

Instead, they described a familiar money-laundering pattern.

Large deposits were allegedly followed by hurried transfers between related accounts, mobile money transactions, bankers’ cheques and substantial cash withdrawals.

According to ARA, the transactions appeared carefully structured to disguise both the source and eventual destination of the funds.

The investigation became even more troubling when officers examined documents used to explain the withdrawals.

They told the court they uncovered forged motor vehicle sale agreements, fabricated invoices, and falsified logbooks.

NTSA searches and statements from purported sellers reportedly contradicted the documents, with some vehicles having no connection whatsoever to the transactions they supposedly supported.

Investigators also concluded that businesses linked to Lumumba lacked the basic hallmarks of genuine commercial operations.

The entities allegedly had no employees, maintained no operational offices, possessed no meaningful tax compliance history, and demonstrated no capacity to perform the consultancy work for which millions had been paid.

Even the chief executive of Invest & Grow SACCO reportedly indicated that proper due diligence may never have been undertaken before the payments were authorised.

Court’s Reasoning

Perhaps the most decisive feature of the proceedings, however, was what never happened.

Despite being properly served with court documents, Birus Chambers Advocates & Solicitors LLP neither filed a response nor appeared before court to contest the allegations or explain the origin of the money.

That silence proved costly.

Justice Ougo noted that civil forfeiture proceedings under POCAMLA are determined on the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Agency therefore needed only to establish that the assets were more likely than not derived from unlawful conduct.

Quoting established jurisprudence, the judge reaffirmed that “forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature”, meaning investigators are not required to secure a criminal conviction before seeking recovery of suspected criminal assets.

The court also relied on a recent Supreme Court decision holding that once the agency establishes a prima facie case, the evidential burden shifts to the asset holder to provide a satisfactory explanation for the property’s lawful origin.

Because no explanation came from the respondent, the Agency’s evidence remained effectively uncontested.

“The applicant has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the KSh14,679,139.65 preserved in the respondent’s account constitutes proceeds of crime,” Justice Ougo concluded before ordering the funds forfeited and transferred to the Criminal Asset Recovery Fund within seven days.

Broader Impact

The July Gazette notice transformed that judgement from a courtroom order into an official act of State.

Issued under Section 92(5) of POCAMLA, Gazette Notice No. 11434 publicly records the forfeiture, confirms the affected account, and formally vests the money in the government.

Such publication forms part of Kenya’s statutory asset recovery process, ensuring forfeiture orders become matters of public record.

Beyond the KSh14.7 million, the ruling carries broader implications for Kenya’s campaign against financial crime.

It reinforces the growing judicial acceptance of civil asset recovery as a powerful tool against suspected money laundering, fraud, and corruption.

Authorities need not wait for lengthy criminal prosecutions before moving against suspicious wealth.

Where investigators demonstrate unlawful conduct on a balance of probabilities, and asset holders cannot satisfactorily account for their wealth, the courts have consistently shown willingness to strip those assets from private hands.

READ ALSO: Three Kenyans Lose Six Vehicles in Major Asset Recovery Case Over Drug Money Trail

The judgement also serves as a warning to businesses claiming professional legitimacy.

Where investigators establish that an enterprise exists without legal authority, supported by fabricated documents and unexplained financial flows, courts are increasingly prepared to treat its earnings not merely as suspicious but as property liable to permanent forfeiture.

For the Assets Recovery Agency, the case marks another significant victory in its expanding use of civil proceedings to dismantle suspected financial crime.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.