XV K.K.

LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

URN: 1508

XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019

________________________________________________________

Before,
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF GRANICUS
________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

STATE OF ISLANDER............................................................PETITIONER 1

WALHALA AIRLINES.............................................................PETITIONER 2

V.

STATE OF GRANICUS...............................................................RESPONDENT

_______________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS]

________________________________________________________
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 8

ISSUES RAISED .................................................................................................................. 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 10

WRITTEN PLEADINGS.........................................................................................................12

1.Whether The Petition Is Maintainable in the Supreme Court of Granicus Or Not? ............ 12

1.1.The Rights Guaranteed Under The Constitution Of Granicus Have Been Violated. 12

1.2.The Doctrine Of Exhaustion Is Not Strictly Applicable .......................................... 13

1.3.The Petition Is Maintainable Under Art. 10 Of The Constitution Of Granicus. ....... 14

2.Whether The Directorate Of Investigation Had The Jurisdiction To Arrest Mr. Andrew
Dark, Seize Walhala One & The Bank Accounts Of Ms. Dark Or Not? ............................... 15

2.1. The Directorate of Investigation had no jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark. ... 15

2.2.The Directorate of Investigation had no jurisdiction to seize Walhala One. ............ 16

2.3.The Directorate of Investigation had no jurisdiction to order for the immediate

seizure of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark. ............................................................ 17

3.Whether The Diplomatic Immunity Extends To Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Dark &
Walhala One Or Not? ...................................................................................................... 17

3.1.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Ms. Aria Dark. ............................................. 18

3.2.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Mr. Andrew Dark. ....................................... 19

3.3.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Walhala One. ............................................... 19

4.Whether The Directorate Of Investigation Has The Power To Investigate Money

Laundering Outside The Territory Of Granicus Or Not? .................................................. 20

4.1.Walhala Industries & Drenner Advisors Are Separate Legal Entities. .................... 21

4.2.The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2017 Is An Ex-Post Facto Law therefore Invalid. ....... 21

4.3.The Directorate Of Investigation Does Not Have The Power To Investigate Money
Laundering Outside The Territory Of Granicus. .......................................................... 22

1
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

5.Whether The Granician Government Authorities & Ms. Aisha Drenner Had A Mala Fide
Intention In Taking An Action Against Walhala Industries Without Prior Action Against
Drenner Or Not?.............................................................................................................. 22

5.1.Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials Are A Single Legal Entity. ...................... 23

5.2.The Proceeds Of Crime Originated From Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials. 23

5.3.No Action Is Permissible Against Walhala Without Prior Action Against Drenner. 24

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 25

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. Cases Cited:

1. Kharak Singh v. State of UP & ors,1964 I SCR 332......................................................…12

2. Basheshwar Nath v. Commissioner, Income Tax,1955 1 S.C.R. 448…………............…12
3. Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1959 SC 276……………….............................................…12
4. A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.........................................………...…12
5. State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss Binapani Dei & ors, 1967 2 SCR 625.................................…12
6. Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v. Raj Narain & Anr, AIR 1975 SC 1590……................…12
7. Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration), 2007 1. SCR 350……..............……12
8. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978 SC 597……….................................................…..…12
9. Hamdi v. Rumsfield, 542 US 507 (2004)………......................…………………………12
10. Felker v. Turpin, 518 US 1051 (1996)……………………….............................………..12
11. Rasul v. Bush ,542 US 466 (2004)…………………………………………….............…12
12. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)……………….......................………........…12
13. Al Odah v. US, 103 Fed. App'x 676 (D.C. Cir. 2004)………………..........................…12
14. Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487)..............……..……12
15. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)………………........................................…12
16. Brown v. Allen, 344 US 433 (1953)……………………………….................................12
17. West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri, APLD 1969 S.C. 14.....13
18. Muhammad Azam Malik v. A.C. Karachi, A.P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 266.................................13
19. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd,2005 6 SCC 499.........13
20. Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.,(2003) 2 SCC 107……........13

2
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

21. State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.,(1977) 2 SCC 724………..............….......…13
22. Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 242……......…....…13
23. P.N. Balasubramanian v Income-Tax Officer & Ors. 1978 112 ITR 512 AP……........…13
24. Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1147……………….................…13
25. Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391………........................................................................................13
26. Felker v. Turpin 518 US 1051 (1996)……………............................................…………14
27. Liversidge v. Sir John &erson (1942) A.C. 238.)……………….....................………….14
28. Rex v. Halliday, (1917) A.C. 260………….........................…………………........……..14
29. Breard v. Greene, 523 US 371 (1998)………………………..............…………….……14
30. Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S Ct 2669 (2006)…………………..........…………..…14
31. Medillin v. Texas, 522 US (2008)………………………………………………….....…14
32. R v. Jones, 132 ILR p. 668……………………………………………........……....……14
33. R(Gentle) v. Prime Minister, (2008) 1 AC 1356……………………...................…....….14
34. Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1.............14
35. I. C. Golaknath & ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (1962) 2 SCR 762...........................…14
36. P.D Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd. (1952) SCR 391.......................................14
37. R.C. Cooper v. UOI (1970) 3 SCR 530.............................................................................14
38. Vimlabai Deshpande v. Emperor AIR 1945 Nag. 8...........................................................14
39. Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji 1882 ILR 5 Mad. 373.....................................14
40. Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani 1950 SCR 621.............................................14
41. P. K. Tare v. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag. 26.........................................................................14
42. Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 20...............................................................................15
43. Polish Nationals Danzig case, PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44...................................................15
44. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate case (ICJ Reports, 1988, pp. 12, 34)............15
45. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case(18 ILR p. 86); Free Zones Case (6 AD p. 362)............15
46. Greco-Bulgarian Communities case (5 AD p. 4).............................................................15
47. Nottenohm case (22 ILR p 349)........................................................................................15
48. Georges Pinson case (4 AD p. 9)......................................................................................15
49. Lockerbie case (94 ILR p 478)...........................................................................................15
50. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon,7 Cranch 116 (1812)....................................................15
51. LaGrand case (134 ILR p. 1)..............................................................................................15
52. Promulgation & Enforcement of Law in Violation of the Convention (116 ILR p 320)...15
53. Avena case (134 ILR p. 120)..............................................................................................15
54. Holland v. Lampen Wolfe, 2000) 1 WLR 1573.................................................................15
3
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

55. Ex-parte Pinochet No. 3, (2000) 1 AC 147........................................................................15

56. International Asso. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. OPEC, 649 F.2d 1354.........16
57. Siderman v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699 (1992).................................................16
58. AIC Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria, 129 ILR , p. 571..........................................16
59. AIG Capital Partners Inc. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 129 ILR, p. 589............................16
60. SerVaas v. Rafidain Bank ((2012) UKSC 40)...................................................................16
61. National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba ,(80 ILR p 566)..........16
62. Serbian Loans case (5 AD p. 466).....................................................................................17
63. Brazilian loans case (PClJ, Series A, No.21).....................................................................17
64. Exchange of Greek & Turkish Populations case (3 AD p. 378).......................................17
65. South West Africa case (17 ILR p. 47).............................................................................17
66. Barcelona Traction case (46 ILR p. 178)..........................................................................17
67. Erdemovic case (111 ILR p. 298).....................................................................................17
68. Banamar v. Embassy of Democratic & Popular Republic of Algeria (87 ILR p 56)........17
69. Philippine Embassy Case (65 ILP p 146)...........................................................................17
70. Birch Shipping Corp. v. Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania (63 ILR p. 524)...17
71. Z. v. Geneva Supervisory Authority for Enforcement of Debts (102 ILR p. 205)...........17
72. Alcom Ltd. v. The Republic of Colombia (74 ILR p. 80)..................................................17
73. Donegal v. Zambia, (2007) EWHC 197.............................................................................17
74. Condor & Filvem v. Minister of Justice, 101 ILR p 394...................................................17
75. Association SOS Attentats v. France UKMIL, 77 BYIL, 2006, pp. 735...........................18
76. Propend Finance v. Sing 111 ILR pp. 611, 667-671..........................................................18
77. Planmount Ltd. v. The Republic of Zaire 64 ILR p 268.....................................................18
78. Non resident Petitioner v. Central Bank of Nigeria 16 ILM 1977 p 501...........................18
79. Boos v. Barry (121 ILR p 499)...........................................................................................19
80. Jimenez v. Aristeguieta 33 ILR p 353................................................................................19
81. Lafontant v. Ariside, 103 ILR p 581.................................................................................19
82. Empire of Iran case (45 ILR p 57).....................................................................................19
83. Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria(64 ILR p 122)..................................19
84. Jones v. Saudi Arabia ((2007) 1 AC 270)..........................................................................19
85. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process case (121 ILR p. 405)...................19
86. Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United Mexican States (22 ILM, 1983, p. 625)................19
87. Ramirez v. Weinberger (23 ILM, 1984, p. 1274)...............................................................19
88. Goldwater v. Carter (444 US 996 (1979))..........................................................................19
4
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

89. Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (64 ILR p. 368)...19
90. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson 100 ILR p 544...............................................................................19
91. Samantar v. Yousef 130 S.Ct 2278 (2010).........................................................................19
92. Jimenez v. Aristeguieta 33 ILR p 353................................................................................19
93. Lafontant v. Ariside, 103 ILR p 581..................................................................................19
94. The Republic of Phillippines v. Marcos 81 ILR p 581......................................................19
95. Buttes Gas & Oil Co. v. Hammer (64 ILR p. 332).............................................................19
96. Buck v. Attorney General (42 ILR p. 11)...........................................................................19
97. I Congreso del Partido (64 ILR p. 154).............................................................................19
98. Harb v. King Fahd ((2005) EWCA Civ 632).....................................................................19
99. Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel (553 US (2008))........................................................19
100. Liu v. Republic of China (29 ILM 1990 p. 192)..........................................................19
101. Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover ((1848) 1 HLC 1).........................................19
102. De Haber v. Queen of Portugal ((1851) 17 QB 171)...................................................19
103. Berizzi Brothers v. SS. Pesaro (271 US 562)..............................................................19
104. Baccus SRL v. Servicio Nacional del Trigo (1957) 1 QB 438....................................20
105. Krajina v. Tass Agency 1949 2 All ER 274................................................................20
106. Czarnikow Ltd. v. Rolimpex 1979 AC 351..................................................................20
107. Tsavliris v. Grain Board of Iraq 2008 ICLC p 592.......................................................20
108. Porto Alexandre case (1 AD p. 146)............................................................................20
109. Cristina case ((1938) AC 485).....................................................................................20
110. Juan Ysmael v. Republic of Indonesia (21 ILR p. 95)................................................20
111. Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman (324 US 30 (1945)).................................................20
112. Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan ((1924) AC 797)..................................................20
113. Sultan of Pahang v. Secretary of State ((2011) EWCA Civ 616)................................20
114. Trawnik v. Gordon Lennox ((1986) 2 All ER 368)....................................................20
115. Kuwait Airlines Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co.(1995 1 WLR 1147)................................20
116. Gittler v. German Information Centre(63 ILR p 170)..................................................20
117. Carey v. National Oil Co.(63 ILR p 164).....................................................................20
118. Yessenin-Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency(63 ILR p 127).........................................20
119. R v Arnaud (1846) 9 QB 806.......................................................................................21
120. Soloman & Soloman & Co Ltd 1897 AC 22................................................................21
121. Lee v. Lee Airfarming Ltd. (1960) UKPC 33..............................................................21
122. In Re. Kondali Tea Company Ltd Case ((1886) ILR 13 Cal 43).................................21
5
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

123. Macura v. Northern Company Assurance Ltd ((1925) AC 619).................................21

124. Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd((1968) IR 252)............................................21
125. State Trading Corp. of India Ltd. (AIR (1963) SC 1811)............................................21
126. C.I.T. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd.( AIR (1967) SC 819)..................................................21
127. Hobart Bridge Co. Ltd. v. FCT ((1951) 82 C.L.R. 372, 385).....................................21
128. Gas Lighting Improvement Co. Ltd. v. IRC((1923) A.C. 723, 741.)...........................21
129. Industrial Equity v. Blackburn(52 A.L.J.R. 89.)..........................................................21
130. Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798)..................................................................22
131. Brij Bhukan Kalwar v. S.D.O Siwan (AIR 1955 Pat 1)...............................................22
132. Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. UOI (AIR 1984 SC 1194)............................................22
133. Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao v. State of U.P (AIR 1953 SC 394).....................................22
134. Jwala Ram v. State of Pepsu (1962 SC 1246).............................................................22
135. Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab(AIR 1964 SC 464).....................................................22
136. Kalpnath Rai v. State ((1997) 8 SCC 732)..................................................................22
137. Pulin K Dutt v. Satayaranjan Bhattacharjee (AIR 1953, cal 599)................................22
138. Chief Inspector of Mines v. Thapar Karan Chand (AIR 1961 SC 838)......................22
139. State Bank of India v. T.J Paul (AIR 1999 SC 1994)..................................................22
140. Walker v Wimborne ((1976) 137 CLR 1)....................................................................22
141. Sawant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 266)..................................................22
142. Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab(AIR 1965 SC 444)........................................................22
143. State v. Gian Singh((1999) 9 SCC 312).......................................................................22
144. Nayyar, G.P. v. Delhi Admin.(AIR 1979 SC 602).......................................................22
145. Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal(AIR 1953 SC 404)............................................22
146. Cf. Narottamdas v. State of M.P.( AIR 1964 SC 1667)...............................................22
147. Hathising Mfg. Co. v. UOI(AIR 1960 SC 923)..........................................................22
148. Oriental Industrial Investment Corp. of India v. UOI 1980 SCC OnLine Del 197......23
149. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 40.............23
150. Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Hari Das Mundhra.(1962 SCC OnLine All 252)......23
151. Vodafone International Holdings BV v. UOI((2012) 6 SCC 613)...............................24
152. The C.I.T Madras v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors.(AIR 1967 SC 819)................24
153. Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer ((1985) 3 SCC 230)...................24
154. Exclusive Motors P.Ltd. v. Automobile Lamborghini S.P.A.(CCI Case 52/2012)....24
155. United States v. Bestfoods(524 U.S. 51 (1998))..........................................................24
156. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Portsmouth Cotton Corp. (1922) 280 Fed. 879...........................24
6
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

157. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. W. R. Grace Co((1920) 267 Fed. 676, 681).........................24

158. Stark Electric R. Co. v. McGinty Contracting Co.( (1917) 238 Fed. 657)..................24
159. U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Co.( (1916) 234 Fed.'127).......................................24
160. Compare Proctor & Gamble v. Newton ((1923) 289 Fed. 1013)................................24
161. Interstate Tel. Co. v. Baltimore Tel. Co((1892) 51 Fed. 49 54 Fed. 50)......................24
162. Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao v. State of U.P.( AIR 1953 SC 394)..................................24
163. Dilard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co. ((1918) 140 Tenn. 290)................24
164. Kelly v. Ning Yung Ben. Assn.( (1905) 2 Cal. App. 460)...........................................24
165. Chicago M. & Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Comm. Asso.((1918) 247 US 490).........24
166. Radio Craft Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co((1925) 7 Fed. (2d) 432)..............24
167. Hunter v. Baker Motor Vehicle Co((1915) 225 Fed. 1006)........................................24
168. Advance-Rumley Thresher Co. v. Geyer((1918) 40 N. D. 18)....................................24
169. Platt v. Bradner Co((1924) 131 Wash. 573).................................................................24
170. Wenban Estate v. Hewlett ((1924) 193 Cal. 675)........................................................24

II. Statutes Referred:

1. The Constitution of Granicus.
2. The Proceeds of Crime Act, 2017.

III. Treaties Referred:

1. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.
2. The Optional Protocol concerning Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1963.
3. The United Nations Convention [against Transnational Organized Crime], 2000.

IV. Books Referred:

1. Malcolm Shaw, INTERNATIONAL LAW (7th Ed., 2014)
2. Roger O’Keefe, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (1st Ed., 2017)
3. Gleider I Hernandez, THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE & THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION (1st Ed., 2014 )
4. Eileen Denza, DIPLOMATIC LAW (2nd Ed., 2004)
5. Anthony Aust, HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2nd Ed., 2010)

7
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Background:
Islander is a country located in an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean with Ms. Aria Dark as the
Head of State. It had entered into Double Tax Avoidance Agreements with a majority of the
nations & had an opaque banking system to support national & international investments.
Granicus is a country which identifies itself as a secular republic & a democratic federation
with Ms. Aisha Drenner as the Head of State. Drenner Financials, the largest financial
services company in Granicus, is run by Ms. Drenner’s son & daughter. Drenner Advisors, a
company incorporated in Islander, is said to be the holding company of Drenner Financials.

The Disinvestment & Investigative Reports:

In 2014, Ms. Dark presided over a massive disinvestment policy, which formally commenced
in 2016. Walhala Industries, headed by Ms. Dark’s nephew, Mr. Andrew Dark, took over a
large number of government companies as a part of the disinvestment. Such businesses
included airlines, banking industries & hotels. Subsequently, the National Airlines carrier of
Islander was renamed as Walhala Airlines & the Air Force One was renamed as Walhala
One. In 2018, certain investigative news reports alleged that Walhala Industries was
associated with Drenner Advisors. The news reports alleged that large amounts of money,
which was obtained by dubious means inter alia by Ms. Dark & her associates in the Islander
& Granician Government, were being routed through Drenner Advisors into Walhala
Industries & then being used to make investments in the Airlines & Hotel Industries of
Islander in 2016. It was alleged that Ms. Aria Dark & Ms. Aisha Drenner were related by
blood & Ms. Dark’s ascension to power was pursuant to back-room discussions within the
banking systems of the two countries & was supported by the financial institutions in
Islander.

The Arrest & Seizure:

Subsequent to such reporting, Ms. Dark, along with Mr. Andrew Dark, made an official visit
to Granicus in order to launch a diplomatic protest regarding the same in Granicus itself.
After their arrival in Granicus, the Directorate of Investigation arrested Mr. Andrew Dark,
seized the Walhala One & passed a quia timet order for the immediate seizure of the bank
accounts of Ms. Aria Dark. Aggrieved by the same, Ms. Dark filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court of Granicus.

8
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

ISSUES RAISED
I

WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON ’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF GRANICUS OR NOT?

II

WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAD THE JURISDICTION TO

ARREST MR. ANDREW DARK, SEIZE WALHALA ONE & THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF MS.

DARK OR NOT?

III

WHETHER THE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO MS. ARIA DARK, MR. ANDREW
DARK & WALHALA ONE OR NOT?

IV

WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAS THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE

MONEY LAUNDERING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF GRANICUS OR NOT?

WHETHER THE GRANICIAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES & MS. AISHA DRENNER HAD

A MALA FIDE INTENTION IN TAKING AN ACTION AGAINST WALHALA INDUSTRIES

WITHOUT PRIOR ACTION AGAINST DRENNER OR NOT?

9
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF GRANICUS OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the present petition is maintainable in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Granicus under Art. 10 of the Constitution of Granicus. There has been a
violation of the rights contained under Art. 11, Art. 12 & Art. 13 of the Constitution of
Granicus in the light of the following arguments:
1. The Constitution of Granicus guarantees the right to protection of life & liberty of every
person, the protection in respect of conviction of offences & equality before the law.
There has been a violation of the said rights.
2. The doctrine of exhaustion is not strictly applicable & the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court cannot be ousted by agreement.
3. The petition is maintainable under Art. 10 of the Constitution of Granicus.

2. WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAD THE JURISDICTION TO ARREST

MR.
ANDREW DARK, SEIZE WALHALA ONE & THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF MS. DARK OR
NOT?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the Directorate of Investigation did not have the
jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark, seize Walhala One & pass a quia timet order for the
immediate seizure of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark in the light of the following
arguments:
1. The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark
under the provisions of a domestic law. Furthermore, he had also been named as the
‘Official Advisor to Ms. Aria Dark’.
2. The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to seize Walhala One since
the aircraft was a privatized national aircraft & thereby, the property of a foreign State.
3. The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to order for the immediate
seizure of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark since such attachment of bank accounts of
a diplomatic mission is invalid.
3. WHETHER THE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO MS. ARIA DARK, MR. ANDREW
DARK & WALHALA ONE OR NOT?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the diplomatic immunity extend to Ms. Aria Dark, Mr.
Andrew Dark & the Walhala One under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, 1961 in the light of the following arguments:

10
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

1. The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Ms. Aria Dark since she was the Head of the State
of Islander on a diplomatic mission to Granicus.
2. The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Mr. Andrew Dark since he was a member of the
diplomatic mission thereby discharging sovereign functions with respect to it & had been
named as the ‘Official Advisor to Ms. Aria Dark’.
3. The Diplomatic Immunity extends to the Walhala One since it was the privatized national
aircraft for the State of Islander & was thereby discharging functions closely resembling
sovereign governmental functions.
4. WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAD THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE

MONEY LAUNDERING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF GRANICUS OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the Directorate of Investigation does not have the power
to investigate money laundering outside the territory of Granicus in the light of the following
arguments:
1. The Granician Government does not establish an extra-territorial nexus because Walhala
Industries & Drenner Advisors are separate legal entities.
2. The Proceeds of Crime Act, 2017 is an Ex-Post Facto Law & therefore invalid.
3. The Directorate of Investigation does not have the power to investigate money
laundering outside the territory of Granicus because the proceeds of crime did not arise
from Granicus.
5. WHETHER THE GRANICIAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES & MS. AISHA DRENNER HAD A

MALA FIDE INTENTION IN TAKING AN ACTION AGAINST WALHALA INDUSTRIES WITHOUT

PRIOR ACTION AGAINST DRENNER OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the Granician Government authorities & Ms. Aisha
Drenner had a mala fide intention & no action is permissible by Directorate of Investigation
against Walhala without prior action Drenner in the light of the following arguments:
1. Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials are single entity because of the holding &
subsidiary relationship.
2. Drenner Advisors invested in Walhala Industries & that the proceeds of crime originated
from Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials.
3. No action is permissible against Walhala without prior action against Drenner because the
money emerging from money laundering has been originated from the Drenner Advisors
& Drenner Financials & has been flowed to Walhala for the investments made.

11
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF GRANICUS OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the present petition is maintainable under Art. 10 of the
Constitution of Granicus which provides for the remedies, by way of issue of writs, in case of
violation of the rights contained under Art. 11, Art. 12 & Art. 13. In the present case, there
has been a violation of the aforesaid provisions & therefore, the present petition is
maintainable in the light of the following arguments:
1.1.There has been a violation of the rights guaranteed under Art. 11, Art. 12 & Art. 13
of the Constitution of Granicus.
The Petitioners humbly submit that Art. 111, Art. 122 & Art. 133 of the Constitution of
Granicus provide for the right of every person to protection of life & personal liberty,
protection in respect of conviction of offences & equality before the law respectively. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held on multiple occasions4 that ‘even if the right to life
& personal liberty is not the sole repository of all personal freedom, it will be clear, that all
aspects of freedom of person are meant to be covered by the fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution.’ Furthermore, in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration)5 it
was held that the detainees had the right to seek a writ under the jurisdiction of the Court.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfield6 it was held that ‘all persons have the right to contest their detention
before a neutral decision-maker.’ A similar contention was upheld by the Supreme Court of
the United States on multiple occasions.7 In Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha

1
“Art. 11 – Protection of life & personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.”
2
“Art. 12 –Protection in respect of conviction for offences – (i) No person shall be prosecuted & punished for
the same offence more than once. (ii) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law
in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than
that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (iii) No
person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
3
“Art. 13 – Equality before law - The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of Granicus.”
4
Kharak Singh v. State of UP & ors. [[1964] I SCR 332]; Basheshwar Nath v. Commissioner, Income Tax
([1955] 1 S.C.R. 448); Daryao v. State of U.P.(AIR 1959 SC 276); Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India
Ltd.(AIR 1985 SC 330); A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 27]; State of Orissa v. Dr. Miss
Binapani Dei & ors. [[1967] 2 SCR 625]; Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) v Raj Narain & Anr [AIR 1975 SC 1590]
5
(2007) 1. SCR 350; Maneka Gandhi v. UOI[AIR 1978 SC 597].
6
542 US 507 (2004).
7
Felker v. Turpin [518 US 1051 (1996)]; Rasul v. Bush [542 US 466 (2004)]; Boumediene v. Bush [553 U.S.
723 (2008)]; Al Odah v US [103 Fed. App'x 676 (D.C. Cir. 2004)]; Ex parte Merryman, [17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D.
Md. 1861) (No. 9487)]; Ex parte Milligan, [71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)]; Brown v. Allen [344 US 433 (1953)].

12
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri8& Muhammad Azam Malik v. A.C. Karachi9 the Supreme
Court of Pakistan held that ‘the court can examine the mala fides of the action taken. In
exercising constitutional jurisdiction relating to a detention, the court was under an
unconditional duty to satisfy itself with regard to the lawfulness of authority of detention &
the manner of detention.’ In the present case, considering the lack of jurisdiction of the
Directorate of Investigation & the Diplomatic Immunity of Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Dark
& Walhala One, the arrest of Mr. Andrew Dark & the seizure of the property of a diplomatic
mission were illegal. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there has been a violation of the
aforesaid rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Granicus by the acts of the Directorate
of Investigation, an agency of the State of Granicus.

1.2.The doctrine of exhaustion is not strictly applicable & the writ jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court cannot be ousted by agreement.
The State of Islander & Granicus are signatories to the Optional Protocol concerning the
Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter, ‘the Protocol, 1963’) to the Vienna
Contention on Diplomatic Relations of 18th April 196110. The said protocol provides that the
disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention shall lie
within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice11. However, in State of Himachal
Pradesh & ors v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd & anr.,12the Hon’ble Court discussed the
exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies as follows: "The power relating
to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. Despite the
existence of an alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court
to grant relief.’ In Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. 13, the court
held that ‘Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a
rule of discretion & not one of compulsion & the Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction in
spite of availability of the alternative remedy’. A similar contention was upheld by the court
on multiple occasions14. In Fay v. Noia15 & Felker v. Turpin16 it was held that ‘the failure to

8
A.P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 14.
9
A.P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 266.
10
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.7.
11
Art. I, Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes,1963.
12
[(2005)6 SCC 499].
13
(2003) 2 SCC 107.
14
ITO v. Short Bros. (P) Ltd. [(1966) 3 SCR 84 : AIR 1967 SC 81]; State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co.
Ltd.[(1977) 2 SCC 724]; Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 8 SCC 242]; P.N.
Balasubramanian v Income-Tax Officer & Ors. [1978 112 ITR 512 AP]; Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana
[AIR 1985 SC 1147]; A.V.Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs. Bombay v Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani &

13
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

exhaust one’s remedies in the state courts would not necessarily foreclose habeas relief in the
federal courts.’ A similar contention was upheld in upon multiple occasions. 17 Furthermore,
in Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.,18 the court held that ‘the
alternative remedy would not operate as a bar where the writ petition seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights.’ It is therefore humbly submitted that, in the present case, the
existence of an alternative remedy by means of the Protocol, 1963 cannot be a bar for the
present writ petition seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights.

1.3.The petition is maintainable under Art. 10 of the Constitution of Granicus.

In the light of the foregoing arguments, the petitioners humbly submit that the present writ
petition is maintainable under Art. 10 for the enforcement of the rights guaranteed under Art.
11, Art. 12 & Art. 13. In I. C. Golaknath & ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.19 it was reinstated
that ‘Not only all steps leading up to the deprivation of personal liberty but also the
substantive right to personal freedom, by implication, is covered by the protection of life &
personal liberty by the Constitution.’ Therefore, where it is found that a detention has not
been made in pursuance of lawful authority or in other words, the detention is without the
authority of law, it may be challenged for the violation of the right to life & personal
liberty.20 Furthermore, in P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd.21 & Shambhu Nath
Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal22 it was held that ‘the right to life & personal liberty as a
restriction on executive action against deprivation of personal liberty without authority of
law,’ A similar contention was upheld upon multiple occasions23. Therefore, in the light of
the foregoing arguments, it is humbly submitted that the present petition is maintainable in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Granicus.

Anr. [AIR 1961 SC 1506]; K.S. Rashid & Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission & Ors.[AIR (1954)
SC 207].
15
[372 US 391].
16
[518 US 1051 (1996)].
17
Liversidge v. Sir John &erson [[1942] A.C. 238.]; Rex v. Halliday[[1917] A.C. 260.]; Breard v. Greene [523
US 371 (1998)]; Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon [126 S Ct 2669 (2006)]; Medillin v. Texas [522 US (2008)]; R v.
Jones [132 ILR p. 668]; R(Gentle) v. Prime Minister [[2008] 1 AC 1356].
18
(1998) 8 SCC 1.
19
[1962] 2 SCR 762.
20
Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh [73 Indian Appeals 59]; State of Bihar v. Maharajidhiraj Kameshwar Singh
of Derbhanga & Ors. [1952] SCR 889 at p.988; P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd. [1952] SCR
391; R.C. Cooper v. UOI [1970] 3 SCR 530.
21
[1952] 2 SCR 391.
22
[1974] 1 SCR 1.
23
Smt. Vidya Verma v. Dr. Shiv Narain [1995] 2 SCR 983; Khudiram Das v.The State of West Bengal & ors.
[[1975] 2 SCR 832]; Vimlabai Deshpande v. Emperor [AIR 1945 Nag. 8]; Jitenderanath Ghosh v. The Chief
Secretary to the Government of Bengal [ILR 60 Cal. 364 at 377]; In re: Banwarilal Roy [48 Cal. Weekly Notes
766 at 780]; Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji [(1882) ILR 5 Mad. 373]; Province of Bombay v.
Khushaldas Advani [[1950] SCR 621]; P. K. Tare v. Emperor [AIR 1943 Nag. 26].

14
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAD THE JURISDICTION

TO ARREST MR. ANDREW DARK & SEIZE WALHALA ONE & THE BANK

ACCOUNTS OF MS. DARK OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the Directorate of Investigation did not have the
jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark, seize Walhala One & order for the immediate seizure
of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark in the light of the following arguments:
2.1.The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew
Dark.
The Petitioners humbly submit that Mr. Andrew Dark was arrested under the provisions of
the Proceeds of Crime Act, 201724 (hereinafter, ‘the Act, 2017’) which is a domestic law of
the State of Granicus. In Cameroon v. Nigeria25 the supremacy of international law over the
domestic laws was reinstated by the ICJ. Furthermore, in the Polish Nationals Danzig case26it
was held that ‘a State cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution & domestic
legislations with a view of evading its obligations under international law or treaties in force.’
A similar view was upheld upon multiple occasions27. Therefore, the Directorate of
Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark, a representative of a
foreign sovereign, under a domestic law.
Furthermore, in Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon28it was held that ‘the jurisdiction of a state
within its own territory is exclusive & absolute, but it does not encompass foreign
sovereigns.’29 In Holland v. Lampen Wolfe30& Ex-parte Pinochet No. 331it was reinstated that
‘state immunity is a creature of customary international law & derives from the equality of
sovereign states.’ In the present case, Mr. Andrew Dark was the ‘Official Advisor to Ms. Aria
Dark’ on a diplomatic mission. According to the Art. 3132 of the Vienna Convention on

24
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.8.
25
ICJ Reports, 2002, pp. 303, 430.
26
PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44, pp. 21,24.
27
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate case [ICJ Reports, 1988, pp. 12, 34];Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries
case[18 ILR p. 86]; Free Zones Case [6 AD p. 362]; Greco-Bulgarian Communities case [5 AD p. 4];
Nottenohm case [22 ILR p 349]; Georges Pinson case [4 AD p. 9]; Lockerbie case [94 ILR p 478].
28
7 Cranch 116 [1812].
29
LaGrand case [134 ILR p. 1]; Promulgation & Enforcement of Law in Violation of the Convention [116 ILR
pp. 320, 332-3]; Avena case [134 ILR p. 120].
30
[2000] 1 WLR 1573.
31
([2000] 1 AC 147).
32
Article 31: ‘1.A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil & administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of: (a) A real action
relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf
of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic
agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person & not on behalf of the sending

15
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Diplomatic Relations, 1961, (hereinafter, ‘the Convention, 1961’) Mr. Andrew Dark is
entitled to immunity from such arrest & further proceedings.
In International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. OPEC 33& Siderman v.
Republic of Argentina34 it was held that ‘the question of sovereign immunity is procedural &
ought to be taken into consideration primarily, before the state action.’ Therefore, without
adjudication upon the question of immunity, any criminal proceeding cannot be initiated
against the Member of a Diplomatic Mission representing a foreign sovereign. In the present
case, therefore, the arrest of Mr. Andrew Dark was ultra vires the jurisdiction of the
Directorate of Investigation.
2.2.The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to seize Walhala One.
The disinvestment policy of the Government of Islander resulted in privatization & thereby,
the National Airlines carrier of Islander was renamed as Walhala Airlines35 & Air Force One,
which was the national aircraft to ferry the Head of State of Islander, was renamed as
Walhala One.36 In AIC Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria,37 AIG Capital Partners Inc. v.
Republic of Kazakhstan38 & SerVaas v. Rafidain Bank39it was held that absolute immunity is
accorded to the property of a foreign state & the term ‘property’ was defined. In the present
case, Walhala One was the property of a foreign state discharging sovereign functions for the
State.Furthermore, in National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba40 it
was held that ‘the forced execution of judgment is inadmissible if the property serves the
sovereign purposes of the foreign state. Customary international law forbids measures of
execution against property of foreign states located in the territory of the state seeking to
enforce the judgment’41
According to Art. 30 (2) of the Convention, 1961, the property of a Diplomatic mission &
diplomatic agent is inviolable & immune from attachment42. In the present case, Walhala One

State;(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the
receiving State outside his official functions.’
33
649 F.2d 1354, 1359.
34
965 F.2d 699 (1992).
35
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p. 3, para. 8.
36
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p. 4, para 10.
37
129 ILR , p. 571.
38
129 ILR, p. 589.
39
([2012] UKSC 40).
40
(80 ILR p 566).
41
Serbian Loans case [5 AD p. 466]; Brazilian loans case [PClJ, Series A, No.21]; Exchange of Greek &
Turkish Populations case [3 AD p. 378]; South West Africa case [17 ILR p. 47]; Barcelona Traction case [46
ILR p. 178]; Erdemovic case [111 ILR p. 298]; Banamar v. Embassy of Democratic & Popular Republic of
Algeria [87 ILR p 56]; Philippine Embassy Case [65 ILP p 146].
42
Article 30: “1.The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability & protection as

16
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

was the property of a foreign state & the Directorate of Investigation effectuated its seizure
while it was in the territory of the receiving state. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the
seizure of Walhala One was ultra vires of the powers of the Directorate of Investigation since
Walhala One was the property of a Diplomatic Mission & discharging sovereign functions.

2.3.The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to order for the
immediate seizure of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark.
The Directorate of Investigation passed a quia timet order for the immediate seizure of the
bank accounts of Ms. Aria Dark.43 In the Phillippine Embassy Case44 the West German
Federal Constitutional Court held that ‘claims against a general bank account of the foreign
state the purpose of which is to cover the mission’s costs & expenses are not subject to forced
execution by the state & the attachment of a bank account of a diplomatic mission is invalid.
The courts have also held that ‘a bank account of a diplomatic mission & the funds allocated
for the diplomatic service of a foreign state are immune from attachment.’45 In Donegal v.
Zambia46 & Condor & Filvem v. Minister of Justice47 it was held that attachment could not
take place if the account could be shown to be used for sovereign purposes of the diplomatic
mission (jure imperii). In the present case, Ms. Aria Dark is the Head of the State of Islander.
Being on a diplomatic mission to Granicus, the seizure of her bank account is ultra vires the
jurisdiction of the Directorate of Investigation since it was being used for the sovereign
purposes of the diplomatic mission & not for commercial purposes.

3. WHETHER THE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO MS. ARIA DARK, MR.

ANDREW DARK & WALHALA ONE OR NOT?

The Petitioners humbly submit that the States of Islander & Granicus are signatories to the
Convention, 1961.48 The said Convention provides for immunity to diplomatic agents.49

the premises of the mission. 2.His papers, correspondence &, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 31, his
property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.”
43
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.5, para 13 (c).
44
Supra, at 41.
45
Birch Shipping Corp. v. Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania [63 ILR p. 524]; Z. v. Geneva
Supervisory Authority for the Enforcement of Debts & Bankruptcy [102 ILR p. 205]; Alcom Ltd. v. The
Republic of Colombia [74 ILR p. 80].
46
[2007] EWHC 197.
47
101 ILR p 394.
48
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p. 7.
49
Article 1: ‘For the purpose of the present Convention, the following expressions shall have the meanings
hereunder assigned to them:(a) The “head of the mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the
duty of acting in that capacity;(b) The “members of the mission” are the head of the mission & the members of
the staff of the mission;(e) A “diplomatic agent” is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff
of the mission.’

17
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Therefore, the diplomatic immunity extends to Ms. Aria Dark, Mr. Andrew Dark & to
Walhala One in the light of the following arguments:

3.1.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Ms. Aria Dark.

The Head of State for Islander, Ms. Aria Dark, is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the
provisions of the Convention, 1961. In Association SOS Attentats v. France50 & Propend
Finance v. Sing51 it was held that the sovereign immunity extends to the Head of State.
According to Art. 3152 of the Convention, 1961, a diplomatic agent is immune from the
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. In the present case, Ms. Aria Dark, being the Head
of State on diplomatic mission to Granicus, was a diplomatic agent & therefore, immune
from the criminal jurisdiction of Granicus.
In Planmount Ltd. v. The Republic of Zaire53 it was held that ‘with the adoption of the
restrictive theory of immunity, the appropriate test becomes whether the activity in question
is of itself sovereign (jure imperii) or non-sovereign (jure gestionis).’ This distinction
between the jure imperii & jure gestionis was reinstated in Non resident Petitioner v. Central
Bank of Nigeria54 wherein it was held that immunity applies to the sovereign acts (jure
imperii) of the Heads, members & agents of a diplomatic mission in the receiving State &
cannot be circumvented.55 In the present case, the acts of Ms. Aria Dark were sovereign in
nature & beyond the ambit of Jure gestionis.
According to Art. 39 of the Convention56, 1961, Ms. Aria Dark was entitled to diplomatic
immunity from the time she entered into the territory of Granicus. However, the seizure of
her bank account was subsequent to her arrival in Granicus & thereby, a violation of the
diplomatic immunity which extends to Ms. Aria Dark & her property.57

Article 29: ‘The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or
detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect & shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any
attack on his person, freedom or dignity.’ Supra, at 42.
50
UKMIL, 77 BYIL, 2006, pp. 735.
51
111 ILR pp. 611, 667-671.
52
Supra, at 32.
53
64 ILR p 268.
54
16 ILM 1977 p 501.
55
Victory Transport case [35 ILR p 110];Empire of Iran case [45 ILR p 57];Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central
Bank of Nigeria[64 ILR p 122]; Jones v. Saudi Arabia [[2007] 1 AC 270]; Difference Relating to Immunity
from Legal Process case [121 ILR p. 405]; Asociacion de Reclamantes v. United Mexican States [22 ILM, 1983,
p. 625]; Ramirez v. Weinberger [23 ILM, 1984, p. 1274];Goldwater v. Carter [444 US 996 (1979)]; Empresa
Exportadora de Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional SA [64 ILR p. 368].
56
Article 39: ‘1.Every person entitled to privileges & immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters
the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the
moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be
agreed.’
57
Supra, at 45.

18
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

3.2.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Mr. Andrew Dark.

Mr. Andrew Dark was Ms. Aria Dark’s nephew58 & he was named as the ‘Official Advisor to
Ms. Aria Dark’.59 According to Art. 3760 of the Convention, 1961, being a family member of
a diplomatic agent, Mr. Andrew Dark was entitled to diplomatic immunity from the moment
he entered the territory of Granicus61.Furthermore, he was recognised as the ‘Official Advisor
to Ms. Aria Dark’ & thereby, Mr. Andrew Dark was recognised as a diplomatic agent.
In Saudi Arabia v. Nelson62 it was held that ‘with the adoption of the restrictive theory of
immunity, the appropriate test becomes whether the activity in question is of itself sovereign
(jure imperii) or non-sovereign (jure gestionis).’ Subsequently in Samantar v. Yousef63 it was
reinstated that ‘the activities must be within normal governmental functions.’ Being the
Official Advisor to the Head of State of Islander, the functions discharged by Mr. Andrew
Dark were purely sovereign (Jure imperii) in nature & within normal governmental functions.
In The Republic of Phillippines v. Marcos64 the court held that ‘the sovereign immunity
extends to sovereign acts only.’ A similar contention was upheld upon multiple occasions.65
In Jimenez v. Aristeguieta66 & Lafontant v. Ariside,67a distinction was made between the
official & private acts of Head of State & other Diplomatic Agents & thereby it was held that
‘sovereign immunity extends to only those acts which are done in official capacity.’ In the
present case, the acts of Mr. Andrew Dark were purely sovereign in nature & performed
under official capacity. Therefore, the diplomatic immunity extends to Mr. Andrew Dark.

3.3.The Diplomatic Immunity extends to Walhala One.

The State of Islander applied an extensive disinvestment policy through which the Air Force
One, which was the national aircraft to ferry the Head of State of Islander, was renamed as
Walhala One.68 Walhala Industries was owned by Mr. Andrew Dark.69 He was a diplomatic

58
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.4, para 12.
59
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p. 6, para 13 (b).
60
Article 37: ‘1.The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are
not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges & immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.’
61
Supra, at 56.
62
100 ILR p 544.
63
130 S.Ct 2278 (2010).
64
81 ILR p 581.
65
Buttes Gas & Oil Co. v. Hammer [64 ILR p. 332]; Buck v. Attorney General [42 ILR p. 11] ; I Congreso del
Partido [64 ILR p. 154]; Harb v. King Fahd [[2005] EWCA Civ 632]; Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel [553
US (2008)]; Liu v. Republic of China [29 ILM 1990 p. 192]; Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover [(1848) 1
HLC 1]; De Haber v. Queen of Portugal [(1851) 17 QB 171]; Berizzi Brothers v. SS. Pesaro [271 US 562];
Boos v. Barry [121 ILR p.499].
66
33 ILR p 353.
67
103 ILR p 581.
68
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.4, para 10.
69
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p.3, para. 4.

19
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

agent on a diplomatic mission to Granicus, & therefore, being the property of a diplomatic
agent, the immunity extends to Walhala One.70 In Baccus SRL v. Servicio Nacional del
Trigo71 the court held that ‘a department of government would be entitled to immunity even
if it had a separate legal personality under its own law.’72 Subsequently in Krajina v. Tass
Agency 73
the text existence of governmental control was devised & it was held that ‘where
functions resembling governmental functions are discharged, the sovereign immunity may be
invoked.’ In the present case, the Walhala One discharged the function of ferrying the Head
of State of Islander on a diplomatic mission which is a governmental function.
In the case of Czarnikow Ltd. v. Rolimpex74& Tsavliris v. Grain Board of Iraq75 it was held
that ‘an entity closely connected with the government so as to be an organ or department of
the state is entitled to immunity.’ It has been held on multiple instances76that ‘a ‘foreign state’
includes its agencies & instrumentalities. It is defined to mean any entity which is a separate
legal person & which is an organ of the foreign state & has such personality in international
law whereby it was able to exercise the powers & functions analogous to those of sovereign
states.’ In the present case, Walhala One discharged the functions which were analogous to a
governmental & sovereign function. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing arguments, it is
humbly submitted that the diplomatic immunity extends to Walhala One & its seizure by the
Directorate of Investigation was invalid.

4. WHETHER THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION HAS THE POWER TO

INVESTIGATE MONEY LAUNDERING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF GRANICUS

OR NOT?
The Petitioners humbly submit that the Granician Government does not have an extra
territorial nexus as Walhala Industries & Drenner Advisors are separate legal entities. The
application of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2017 as an Ex-Post Facto Law is invalid and the
Directorate of Investigation does not have the power to investigate money laundering outside
the territory of Granicus, in the light of the following arguments:

70
Supra, at 41.
71
(1957) 1 QB 438.
72
Porto Alexandre case [1 AD p. 146]; Cristina case [[1938] AC 485]; Juan Ysmael v. Republic of Indonesia
[21 ILR p. 95]; Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman [324 US 30 (1945)]; Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan [[1924]
AC 797]; Sultan of Pahang v. Secretary of State [[2011] EWCA Civ 616]; Trawnik v. Gordon Lennox [[1986] 2
All ER 368].
73
1949 2 All ER 274.
74
1979 AC 351.
75
2008 ICLC p 592.
76
Kuwait Airlines Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co.[1995 1 WLR 1147] Gittler v. German Information Centre[63 ILR
p 170]; Carey v. National Oil Co.[63 ILR p 164]; Yessenin-Volpin v. Novosti Press Agency[63 ILR p 127].

20
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

4.1.The Granician Government Does Not Have An Extra Territorial Nexus As Walhala
Industries & Drenner Advisors Are Separate Legal Entities.
The Petitioners humbly submit that according to Sec. 1(i)(2) of the Act, 2017, the proceeds of
crime can only be investigated by the Directorate of investigation outside the territory of
Granicus if it relates to the proceeds crime arising from within the Granicus. 77 It is humbly
submitted that Walhala Industries & Drenner Advisors are two Separate legal entities. In the
case of R v Arnaud78, the House of Lords held that a company has a separate legal entity from
its shareholders, investors, etc. The same principle was reiterated in the cases of Soloman &
Soloman & Co Ltd79& Lee v. Lee Airfarming Ltd.80A similar contention stating that ‘a
company is an artificial person created by law, having a separate entity, distinct from its
investors,’ was held on multiple occasions.81 In the present case, the Drenner Advisors
merely invested in Walhala Industries. The two companies continue to exist as two separate
legal entities.
Furthermore, extra-territorial nexus could only be established when the proceeds of crime
arises within the territory of Granicus, however, Drenner Advisors is the holding company of
Drenner Financials therefore, proceeds of crime has arisen from Drenner Advisors which is
situated in Islander. Therefore, the Granician Government does not have an extra-territorial
nexus as Walhala Industries & Drenner Advisors are separate legal entities.

4.2.The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2017 Is An Ex-Post Facto Law therefore Invalid.
The Petitioners in the present case humbly submit that according to Art. 12(ii) of the
Constitution of Granicus82, a person cannot be charged under a law which is enacted after the
commission of an offence. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that in the case of Calder v.
Bull83, the court held that ex post facto law is prohibited in criminal cases & it cannot have a
retrospective affect. The same principle was reiterated upon multiple instances. 84 In the

77
Sec 1. (i) This Act shall extend to the 1. the territory of Granicus, & 2. to any activity relating to the proceeds
of crime outside Granicus, which relates to proceeds of crime arising within the territory of Granicus.
78
(1846) 9 QB 806.
79
[1897] AC 22.
80
[1960] UKPC 33.
81
In Re. Kondali Tea Company Ltd Case [(1886) ILR 13 Cal 43] , Macura v. Northern Company Assurance Ltd
[[1925] AC 619], Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd[[1968] IR 252] , State Trading Corp. of India Ltd.
[AIR (1963) SC 1811], C.I.T. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd.[ AIR (1967) SC 819] , Hobart Bridge Co. Ltd. v. FCT
[(1951) 82 C.L.R. 372, 385], Gas Lighting Improvement Co. Ltd. v. IRC[[1923] A.C. 723, 741.] , Industrial
Equity v. Blackburn[52 A.L.J.R. 89].
82
Supra, at 2.
83
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798).
84
Brij Bhukan Kalwar v. S.D.O Siwan [AIR 1955 Pat 1] , Shiv Dutt Rai Fateh Chand v. UOI [AIR 1984 SC
1194] , Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao v. State of U.P [AIR 1953 SC 394] , Jwala Ram v. State of Pepsu [1962 SC
1246] , Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab[AIR 1964 SC 464] , Kalpnath Rai v. State [(1997) 8 SCC 732], Pulin K

21
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

present case, the Act, 2017 is a criminal legislation enacted in 2017, whereas the commission
of the alleged offences have taken place between the years 2015-2016.Therefore, application
of the Act, 2017 as an ex-post facto law in the present case is invalid.

4.3.The Directorate Of Investigation Does Not Have The Power To Investigate Money
Laundering Outside The Territory Of Granicus.
The Petitioners humbly submit that the proceeds of crime did not emerge from the
Granicus85. In the present case, Walhala & Drenner Advisors are two separate legal
entities.86Drenner Advisors is the holding company of Drenner Financials, therefore, the
proceeds of crime has originated from Islander & not Granicus. The application of the Act,
2017 to the alleged transactions occurring during 2015-2016 as an ex-post facto law is
invalid.87. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing arguments, it is humbly submitted that the
Granician Government does not establish the extra-territorial nexus & therefore, the
Directorate of Investigation does not have the power to investigate the money-laundering
activities outside Granicus.

5. WHETHER THE GRANICIAN GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES & MS. AISHA

DRENNER HAD A MALA FIDE INTENTION IN TAKING AN ACTION AGAINST

WALHALA INDUSTRIES WITHOUT PRIOR ACTION AGAINST DRENNER OR

NOT?
The Petitioners humbly submits that the Granician Government authorities & Ms. Aisha
Drenner had a mala fide to take over the activities of Walhala Industries on the pretext that
Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials are a single entity. Furthermore, it is humbly
submitted that Drenner Advisors have invested in Walhala Industries & therefore the
proceeds of crime has emerged from Drenner Advisors. It is humbly submitted no action is
permissible by Directorate of Investigation against Walhala without prior action Drenner in
the light of the following arguments:

Dutt v. Satayaranjan Bhattacharjee [AIR 1953, cal 599], Chief Inspector of Mines v. Thapar Karan Chand [AIR
1961 SC 838]; State Bank of India v. T.J Paul [AIR 1999 SC 1994].
85
Supra, at 81.
86
Walker v Wimborne [(1976) 137 CLR 1].
87
Sawant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 266], Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab[AIR 1965 SC 444] , State
v. Gian Singh[(1999) 9 SCC 312], Nayyar, G.P. v. Delhi Admin.[AIR 1979 SC 602], Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao
v. State of U.P.[ AIR 1953 SC 394] , Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal[AIR 1953 SC 404], Cf. Narottamdas
v. State of M.P.[ AIR 1964 SC 1667] , Hathising Mfg. Co. v. UOI[AIR 1960 SC 923].

22
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

5.1.Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials Are A Single Legal Entity.

The Petitioners humbly submits that Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials are Holding &
Subsidiary Companies. Sec. 1159 of the Companies Act 2006 of the United Kingdom,
provides the definition of holding & subsidiary companies88. In the case of Oriental
Industrial Investment Corp. of India v. UOI89, reiterating the principle laid down in Salomon
v. Salomon90, that “In general, a company is deemed to be a subsidiary company of another if
(1) the other controls the composition of directors, or (2) the other holds more than half in
nominal value of its equity share capital, or (3) a company is a subsidiary of any company
which is in turn a subsidiary of another company. In the present case, Drenner Financials is
the subsidiary of Drenner Advisors.
Furthermore, in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar91 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “The principle was approved by this Court that the corporate veil
could be lifted where the companies shared the relationship of a holding company & a
subsidiary company.” The same principle is reiterated by the courts upon multiple
occasions.92 Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials
are same legal entity.

5.2.Drenner Advisors Invested In Walhala Industries & The Proceeds Of Crime

Originated From Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials.
The Petitioners humbly submit that Walhala Industries invested in the Airline, Hotel &
banking industries of Islander from 2015-2016. Drenner Advisors invested in Walhala
Industries during the aforesaid period.93 Furthermore, as Drenner Advisors & Drenner
Financials is the same entity, it is humbly submitted that the money laundering activities
originated from Drenner Advisors. In the case of Fourth Nat. Bank v. Portsmouth Cotton94, it

88
MEANING OF HOLDING & SUBSIDIARY: A company is a “subsidiary” of another company, its
“holding company”, if that other company - (a)holds a majority of the voting rights in it, or (b)is a member of it
& has the right to appoint or remove a majority of its board of directors, or (c)is a member of it & controls
alone, pursuant to an agreement with other members, a majority of the voting rights in it, or if it is a subsidiary
of a company that is itself a subsidiary of that other company.
89
1980 SCC OnLine Del 197.
90
Supra, at 79.
91
AIR 1965 SC 40.
92
Life Insurance Corp. of India v. Hari Das Mundhra & ors. [1962 SCC OnLine All 252] , Vodafone
International Holdings BV v. UOI[(2012) 6 SCC 613] , The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Sri
Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors.[ AIR 1967 SC 819] , Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [(1985) 3
SCC 230] Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Automobile Lamborghini S.P.A.[CCI Case 52/2012] ,United States v.
Bestfoods[524 U.S. 51 (1998)].
93
Statement of Facts, K.K. Luthra Memorial Moot Court, 2019, p. 4, para 9.
94
Corp. (1922) 280 Fed. 879, 284 Fed. 718.

23
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

was held that the holding company was liable for the acts of the subsidiary as they are a
single entity & the affairs of the same are inter-related.
The same was reiterated upon multiple occasions thereby holding that the affairs of the
subsidiary & the holding company are inter-related & therefore, the both holding &
subsidiary company can be held liable for the said acts95. In the present case, since Drenner
Financials & Drenner Advisors are the same entity, the proceeds of crime emerged from the
Drenner Advisors.

5.3.No Action Is Permissible Against Walhala Without Prior Action Against Drenner.
The Petitioners humbly submit that the money emerging from money laundering has been
originated from the Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials & has been flowed into Walhala
Industries for the investments made. Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials having a
holding-subsidiary relationship, are the same legal entity as held by the courts upon multiple
occasions.96 Furthermore, the Petitioners humbly submit the Granicus Government & Ms.
Drenner have a mala fide intention of taking over Walhala Industries through Drenner
advisors & Drenner Financials on the pretext that the money laundering activities have
originated from Drenner Advisors, being a part of their common conspiracy. Therefore, no
action is permissible by the Directorate of Investigation without prior action against Drenner.
In the light of the foregoing arguments, the Petitioners humbly submit that the Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to declare that Drenner Advisors & Drenner Financials are single entity,
furthermore, that the proceeds of crime emerged from Drenner Advisors & therefore, no
action is permissible by the directorate of investigation against Walhala Industries without
prior action against Drenner.

95
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. W. R. Grace Co[(1920) 267 Fed. 676, 681] , Stark Electric R. Co. v. McGinty
Contracting Co.[ (1917) 238 Fed. 657] , U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Co.[ (1916) 234 Fed.'127] , Compare
Proctor & Gamble v. Newton [(1923) 289 Fed. 1013], Interstate Tel. Co. v. Baltimore Tel. Co[(1892) 51 Fed. 49
54 Fed. 50]. , Dilard & Coffin Co. v. Richmond Cotton Oil Co. [(1918) 140 Tenn. 290, 204 S. W. 758] , Kelly
v. Ning Yung Ben. Assn.[ (1905) 2 Cal. App. 460].
96
Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis Civic & Comm. Assn.[ (1918) 247 U. S. 490] , Radio Craft Co. v.
Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co[(1925) 7 Fed. (2d) 432], Hunter v. Baker Motor Vehicle Co[(1915) 225 Fed.
1006] , Advance-Rumley Thresher Co. v. Geyer[(1918) 40 N. D. 18] , Platt v. Bradner Co[(1924) 131 Wash.
573], Wenban Estate v. Hewlett [(1924) 193 Cal. 675].

24
 XV K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2019
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, written pleadings & authorities cited, the Petitioners hereby
humbly submit that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Granicus may be pleased to adjudge &
declare that:

1. The present petition is maintainable & thereby, issue a writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus;
2. The Directorate of Investigation did not have the jurisdiction to arrest Mr. Andrew Dark,
seize Walhala One & order for the immediate seizure of the bank accounts of Ms. Aria
Dark;
3. The Diplomatic Immunity, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961,
extends to Mr. Andrew Dark, Walhala One & Ms. Aria Dark;
4. The Directorate of Investigation did not have the power to investigate money laundering
outside the territory of Granicus;
5. The Granician Government authorities & Ms. Aisha Drenner had a mala fide intention in
taking an action against Walhala Industries without prior action against Drenner.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience.

For this Act of kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-

[URN: 1508]

Counsels for the Petitioners

25