Tweet

Justice Tamara Gill finds statutory threshold was not established, says evidence did not show a real risk of assets being dissipated and rules there was material non-disclosure in the original ex parte application

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS, July 30, 2026 — Times Caribbean

The High Court in St. Kitts and Nevis has discharged in its entirety a restraint order obtained by the Director of Public Prosecutions against Gregory Gilpin-Payne and three associated companies, while also ordering the DPP to pay the applicants’ costs.

The significant ruling was delivered orally by High Court Judge Justice Tamara Gill on July 14, 2026, in case SKBHCV2026/0140, and was filed with the High Court on July 15.

The applicants were Gregory Gilpin-Payne, IIC Management Company Ltd, International Stem Cell Enterprises Ltd, and IIC Management Company (Antigua) Ltd. The Director of Public Prosecutions was named as the respondent/claimant.

The matter arose under Section 46 of the Proceeds of Crime and Asset Recovery Act, 2020.

According to the ruling, the DPP had applied ex parte — without notice to the applicants — on June 18, 2026 for the restraint order, supported by an affidavit from Inspector Jerry Watt. The order was granted on June 19 and was served on Gilpin-Payne on June 22.

The applicants subsequently moved to have the order discharged.

Allegations centred on approximately US$50 million

The judgment records that the DPP’s case alleged the diversion of approximately US$50 million reportedly invested for a stem-cell medical project.

According to the Crown’s case as outlined by the Court, the funds were allegedly received into accounts in the United States before onward transfers involving related entities and loans to Ignite International Brands Ltd, with alleged connections being drawn between the transfers, entities and persons associated with the applicants.

Importantly, these were allegations advanced in support of the restraint proceedings and were disputed by the applicants.

Gilpin-Payne and the companies denied receiving the alleged funds. They produced salary records and corporate bank statements and argued that the original restraint order had been obtained without the required full and frank disclosure and without satisfying the statutory tests.

Court: No transactional evidence linking alleged proceeds to applicants

One of the central questions for Justice Gill was whether there were objectively reasonable grounds to believe that any of the applicants had obtained property falling within the legislation.

The Court found that the evidence presented by the respondent traced receipt of the alleged US$50 million to Rohleder Inc., a United States entity, and described onward transfers among entities which were not defendants.

But Justice Gill found that the original affidavit did not exhibit transactional documents showing transfers into accounts controlled by any of the applicants or otherwise establish that an applicant had obtained an interest in the alleged proceeds.

A subsequent affidavit advanced further assertions, the Court said, but still did not provide exhibited transactional proof linking the alleged proceeds to any applicant.

The Court also noted that evidence supplied by the applicants, including Gilpin-Payne’s bank statements and salary records, showed what the Court described as legitimate remuneration, while the corporate records presented did not disclose receipt of the alleged diverted funds.

Justice Gill therefore concluded that, on the material before the Court, the DPP had not established objectively reasonable grounds to believe that any applicant had obtained property within the meaning of the legislation.

Three companies treated as separate corporate entities

The Court also addressed whether the restrained corporate assets qualified as “realisable property.”

Justice Gill found that the three corporate applicants were separate legal entities and that the DPP had not produced material establishing that the companies were facades, sham devices or recipients of tainted gifts.

The ruling further states that no proceedings had been instituted in St. Christopher and Nevis against the corporate applicants, while the warrants and charges presented in the record related to Gilpin-Payne.

The Court noted that assets belonging to two of the corporate applicants were situated in Antigua and that the legislation provided a mechanism for overseas enforcement.

The judge concluded that assets belonging to IIC Management Company Ltd, International Stem Cell Enterprises Ltd and IIC Management Company (Antigua) Ltd had not been shown, on the evidence before the Court, to constitute realisable property under the relevant provision.

As it related specifically to Gilpin-Payne, the Court said the only personal asset identified in the original schedule was a single motor vehicle, with no exhibited evidence linking his personal accounts to the alleged proceeds.

No demonstrated real risk of assets being dissipated

Another major issue was whether there was a genuine risk that assets could be moved, hidden or otherwise dissipated if the restraint order was removed.

Justice Gill said the asserted risk rested largely on the scale of the alleged diversion, cross-border dealings and related-party corporate structures.

But the Court found this insufficient without concrete supporting evidence.

The ruling states that there was no exhibited evidence of contemporaneous bank instructions, unexplained withdrawals or other specific conduct demonstrating imminent dissipation.

The Court therefore concluded that the DPP had not established a real risk of dissipation sufficient to continue the broad restraint order against the corporate applicants or to justify a broad restraint over Gilpin-Payne’s assets beyond the single vehicle identified.

Court finds material non-disclosure

The strongest criticism contained in the ruling surrounded the Crown’s responsibility when seeking an order without notifying the other side.

Justice Gill emphasised that an applicant seeking a without-notice order owes the Court an “uncompromising duty of full and frank disclosure” of material matters capable of affecting the Court’s decision.

The Court accepted evidence from the applicants that Inspector Watt’s first affidavit had been presented without a Certificate of Exhibits and that several documents referred to in that affidavit were not exhibited or served when the restraint order was granted.

The judge identified what the Court considered material omissions, including information concerning the virtual complainant’s admitted misconduct in the United States, Inspector Watt’s previous dealings with and knowledge of the legitimate business of the second applicant, and the absence of exhibited transactional documents at the original hearing.

Justice Gill found those omissions relevant to the Court’s assessment of credibility, innocent explanations for transactions and the claimed risk of dissipation.

The Court further held that a second affidavit filed after the original ex parte order could not retrospectively validate an order obtained on what the judge described as an incomplete or misleading presentation.

Restraint order discharged in full

Justice Gill ultimately found that the DPP had breached the duty of full and frank disclosure and that the omissions were material.

The Court ruled that the appropriate remedy was to discharge the restraint order and award costs to the applicants.

The final orders state that:

1. The restraint order dated June 19, 2026 is discharged in its entirety and is of no further force or effect.
2. The DPP must pay the applicants’ costs of the application, with those costs to be assessed if the parties cannot agree on an amount within 30 days.

The ruling also expressly preserves the Court’s ability to permit a fresh application on strict terms, meaning the decision does not necessarily prevent prosecutors from making another properly supported application.

The judgment is consequently significant, but it should not be interpreted as a final determination of any underlying criminal allegations. The proceeding before Justice Gill concerned whether the legal and evidential requirements for maintaining the restraint order had been satisfied and whether the original without-notice application had met the required disclosure standard.

Times Caribbean will continue to follow developments in the matter.