The High Court has ordered businessman Jared Kiasa Otieno to forfeit a luxury Bentley vehicle to the State, after finding that it constituted proceeds of crime.
In a ruling delivered in Nairobi, the court allowed an application by the Assets Recovery Authority (ARA) seeking the forfeiture of two high-end vehicles linked to Otieno.
Bentley Declared Proceeds of Crime
ARA had moved to court seeking the surrender of:
-
Bentley Continental GT 2019 – Registration KCU 966C
-
Porsche Panamera – Registration KCD 966L
High Court Judge Esther Maina ruled that ARA had met the required legal threshold in respect of the Bentley.
“It is therefore my finding that the applicant has proved on a balance of probabilities that the motor vehicle KCU 966C is a proceed of crime,” Justice Maina held.
The Bentley was consequently ordered forfeited to the State.
Porsche Panamera Decision Deferred
However, the court declined to make a determination regarding the Porsche Panamera, citing an existing appellate process.
Justice Maina noted that a previous ruling by John Onyiego, delivered on November 20, 2019, had already found that the Porsche was not linked to criminal activity.
That decision, she observed, is currently under appeal at the Court of Appeal, after being challenged by ARA.
“This court cannot render itself on the motor vehicle KCD 966L since the matter is pending before the Court of Appeal,” the judge ruled.
Vehicles Registered Under Associated Firms
Court records show that the two luxury vehicles were registered under companies associated with Otieno:
-
Cleanen Limited
-
Yugni Holdings Limited
ARA argued that the firms were used to conceal beneficial ownership and to launder proceeds derived from criminal activity.
The forfeiture case is part of broader efforts by the State to recover assets suspected to have been acquired through illicit financial dealings, particularly in connection with transnational fraud and fake gold schemes.
Asset Recovery Crackdown Intensifies
The ruling reinforces the powers of the Assets Recovery Authority to pursue civil forfeiture proceedings, which do not require a criminal conviction but rely on proof that assets are linked to unlawful activity.
Legal analysts say the decision sends a strong warning to individuals who use corporate structures and luxury assets to shield suspected proceeds of crime.
The case involving Otieno remains active in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, with further determinations expected as appellate proceedings continue.