High Court dismisses Mohameds’ bid to win back cambio licence

Last Updated on Friday, 6 March 2026, 8:38 by Writer

High Court Judge Damone Younge on Thursday dismissed a case by Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed for their foreign exchange dealer’s licence to be restored, crediting the Bank of Guyana with taking into consideration the sanctions by the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in June 2024.

“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. To argue otherwise would be insincere,” the judge said.

The court ordered the Mohameds to pay the Bank of Guyana GY$250,000 for costs on or before April 10, 2026.

OFAC issued the sanctions on the Mohameds on June 11, 2024 and the licence for Confidential Cambio was revoked on June 13, 2025.

The judge noted that the Dealers in Foreign Currency Licensing Act states that the Central Bank, after consultation with the minister of finance, may grant or refuse to grant a licence based on, among other things, the character and antecedents of the applicant.

She said the revocation of the Mohameds’ licence by the Respondent was done in accordance with the Dealers in Foreign Currency (Licensing) Act.

In that regard, Justice Younge said the Bank of Guyana had “every right” and “obligation” to consider the applicants’ sanctioned status and “having done so and found them no longer “fit and proper”, was empowered to revoke the Mohameds’ licence on that ground.

The High Court rejected the Mohameds’ contention that they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard prior to the revocation of their license since the letter attached to their own application of June 12, 2024 expressly invited them to a hearing on June 13, 2024, but for reasons known only to them, they did not avail themselves of the opportunity.

Justice Younge said she disagreed with the Mohameds’ submission that at the time that letter was sent the Bank of Guyana General Manager had already predetermined the matter, nor does this Court agree with their contention that the letter of 12 June 2024 was a revocation of the licence.

“An expressed “intention” to do something is not a “final, non-reviewable” decision to do it, she stated.

Nowhere was it stated in that letter that the Applicants’ licence was revoked, and any other interpretation of the contents of that letter cannot reasonably be sustained given the ordinary and plain meaning of the word “intends”, the judge further noted.

The High Court, in its decision, said it also agreed with the Bank of Guyana that the Mohameds were guilty of undue delay in instituting the proceedings challenging the revocation of their license since the proceedings were, without explanation, filed one year after the revocation thereof, and after the license would have in any event expired almost six months before on 31 December 2024.

“This fact alone would disentitle the Applicants to the Order of Mandamus which they seek to compel the Respondent to restore their licence, since the the Court cannot properly restore a licence that had already expired.

Added to that, there was no explanation forthcoming from the Applicants as to why they did not act sooner if they felt aggrieved by the decision taken by the Bank of Guyana.