COURT DISMISSES SUIT AGAINST STANBIC BANK OVER MONEY LAUNDERING LINKED TO M23 REBELS
Judge rules plaintiff’s conduct amounted to money laundering in transaction involving sanctioned rebel group
KAMPALA, March 16, 2026 — The High Court Commercial Division has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Stanbic Bank Uganda by a man seeking recovery of US$73,262.50 that was reversed from his account, ruling that the transaction formed part of a money laundering scheme involving the notorious M23 rebel group operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In a landmark judgment delivered electronically today, Justice Stephen Mubiru found that Fabrice Brad Rulinda’s conduct amounted to money laundering and that he could not maintain an action against the bank for reversing the funds, even though the court found the bank had technically breached the contract by debiting the account without authorization.
The Transaction
The court heard that on August 10 and 11, 2017, Rulinda’s dollar account at Stanbic’s Bugolobi village Mall branch received two electronic transfers totaling approximately US$496,220 from M/s Green Global Corporation. When the bank flagged the transactions as suspicious, reversed one transfer of US$73,262.50, and froze the account, Rulinda sued for breach of contract.
However, evidence presented during the trial painted a dramatically different picture.
Plaintiff’s Bank Statement Analysis
Account No. 9030009189296 (1st January – 8th September 2017):
· 13th January 2017: US$10,000 deposit
· Jan-May 2017: Multiple small withdrawals (US$400 – US$5,000)
· 6th August 2017: US$100 credit
· 9th August 2017: US$35 point-of-sale purchase
· 10th August 2017: US$422,957.50 deposit
· Same day: Two withdrawals (US$10,000 and US$50,000)
· 11th August 2017: US$73,262.50 deposit
· 18th August 2017: US$155,800 cash withdrawal
· Same day: Multiple Dubai Duty Free purchases (various amounts)
· 21st August 2017: US$4,000 cash withdrawal
· 28th August 2017: US$22,379.46 tuition payment for “Mwiza”
· Same day: US$2,000 cash withdrawal
· 31st August 2017: Reversal of US$73,262.50 credit
M23 Connections Revealed
In a police statement from September 2017, Rulinda admitted to acting as an intermediary between Green Global Corporation and M23 rebels in a gold transaction.
“I organised and they met at Serena Conference meeting room upstairs. They were two people from M23 that is Amani and Mr. Cloud, both of them are Congolese nationals,” Rulinda told police investigators.
He further explained that the foreign buyers were not comfortable dealing directly with the rebels, stating: “being an American by nationality would sound bad.”
The court heard that the plan involved transferring money through Rulinda’s account, which he would then withdraw and give to the M23 representatives.
Wilful Blindness
During cross-examination, Rulinda admitted he was “not interested in knowing the source of funds” and gave multiple, contradictory explanations for the purpose of the money — claiming it was for gold, oil, transport, and construction businesses simultaneously.
The court applied anti-money laundering principles, noting that proof may be furnished through circumstantial evidence from which an inference can be drawn that property has a criminal origin.
“When a suspect in a case of money laundering states he or she was ‘not interested’ in knowing the source of funds, it is equivalent to turning a blind eye,” Justice Mubiru ruled. “Providing multiple, disparate justifications for the same funds is a red flag indicating an attempt to disguise the illegal origin of the money.”
UN Sanctions Against M23
The judgment extensively referenced United Nations Security Council Resolution S/RES/2076(2012), adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which:
· Strongly condemned M23 attacks on civilians, MONUSCO peacekeepers, and humanitarian actors
· Condemned human rights abuses including summary executions, sexual violence, and child soldier recruitment
· Condemned attempts by M23 to establish an illegitimate parallel administration and undermine DRC State authority
· Expressed deep concern at external support to M23 including troop reinforcement, tactical advice, and equipment supply
The court noted that M23’s engagement in the illicit transfer of minerals to neighbouring countries where they are laundered was common knowledge, achieved by disguising minerals among production and declaring them as sourced in neighbouring countries.
Money Laundering Finding
“The transaction in which the plaintiff was involved when placed under forensic examination does not generally look like normal commercial activity. It is criminal money laundering dressed up to look like normal commercial activity,” the judge stated.
The court found that even if the money was lawful before being paid into the account, its character changed upon being paid in, becoming criminal property in the plaintiff’s hands by reason of the arrangement to apply it in facilitating illegal activity.
Bank’s Technical Breach
The court found that while Stanbic acted properly in investigating and reporting the suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Authority, its decision to reverse the credit without customer instructions or court order technically breached the banking contract.
The judgment clarified that banks may reverse mistaken credits but have no authority to debit customer accounts based on suspicion alone. Reasonable suspicion justifies temporary freezing until explanation provided or authorities direct otherwise.
However, this technical breach did not assist the plaintiff.
Public Policy Prevails
Citing the legal maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” (from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise), Justice Mubiru ruled: “The plaintiff can neither maintain an action against the defendant nor is he entitled to the remedies sought. The suit is accordingly dismissed with costs to the defendant.”
The court emphasized that it is a violation of public policy to enforce a contract for payment involving money laundering, as such agreements are illegal, unethical, and against public interest. The Anti-Money Laundering Act criminalises the acquisition, possession, or transfer of criminal property, prohibiting courts from enforcing transactions that allow criminals to profit from their crimes.
Criminal Charges Withdrawn
The judgment noted that although criminal charges against Rulinda were withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions via nolle prosequi, this did not amount to proof of innocence in civil proceedings, where the lower “balance of probabilities” standard applies.
The court cited the O.J. Simpson case as an example where criminal acquittal did not prevent civil liability based on the same facts.
Red Flags Identified
The Financial Intelligence Authority’s Guidance Note identified multiple red flags in this case:
· Client admitting involvement in criminal activities
· Conducting frequent large cash transactions not normal for the client
· Account with many small deposits and few large withdrawals
· Transaction involving country with ineffective AML measures
· Confusing details about transaction purpose
· Fund transfers inconsistent with typical business transactions
· Inconsistencies in presentation
· Unusually large deposits linked to area associated with illicit trade
Implications for Banking Practice
Banking experts say the ruling reinforces the obligation of financial institutions to scrutinize unusual transactions and report suspicions to authorities, while clarifying that final confiscation of assets requires court orders.
The judgment establishes important principles:
· Banks may refuse payment instructions if doing so would involve money laundering offences
· Banks may temporarily freeze accounts based on reasonable suspicion
· Banks may reverse mistaken credits but cannot unilaterally debit accounts based on suspicion
· Final confiscation requires court order or FIA action
· Contracts involving proceeds of crime are unenforceable
Case Details
The case was heard on August 31, 2022, with judgment delivered nearly four years later on March 16, 2026. Rulinda was represented by M/s Bluebell Legal Advocates, while M/s Kyagaba & Otatiina Advocates (Dentons) appeared for Stanbic Bank.
The court awarded costs to the defendant.
About The Author
