Appeal Court Deals Major Blow to GRA in Fight Over Mohamed Family’s Luxury Cars

The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) has suffered a major legal defeat after the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision blocking the state agency from seizing a fleet of luxury vehicles owned by prominent businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his sister, Hana Mohamed.

In a ruling handed down last Friday by acting Chief Justice Roxane George -Wiltshire S.C, and Justice Nareshwar Harnanan, the appellate court found no merit in the GRA’s attempt to impound the vehicles ahead of the full hearing of the tax evasion case. The decision means that the multimillion-dollar vehicles — including a Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Lamborghini, and multiple Toyota Land Cruisers — will remain in the possession of the Mohameds pending the resolution of the substantive trial.

The court also ordered the GRA to pay $300,000 in costs to each of the Mohamed siblings by June 30, 2025.

“They Lost the Appeal”: Mohamed Slams State’s Legal Spending

In a pointed statement posted to Facebook shortly after the decision, Azruddin Mohamed blasted the GRA — and by extension, the Government of Guyana — for what he described as a waste of public funds in the state’s aggressive but unsuccessful legal pursuit.

“Today [Friday] I witnessed about 8 Attorneys representing GRA, a corporation of the GOG,” Mohamed wrote. “Of the eight lawyers, one was Former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. The question is how much is the fees to pay these high-level attorneys? You need to know that all the fees paid by the state are taxpayers’ dollars — and guess what — THEY LOST THE APPEAL.”

Mohamed went on to thank his legal team, attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva, and gave credit to “Almighty GOD” for the outcome.

A Billion-Dollar Tax Battle

The case revolves around the GRA’s claim that the Mohameds collectively owe over $1.2 billion in taxes tied to the importation of high-end vehicles under the duty-free re-migrant program. The GRA has accused the family of breaching concessionary terms and falsely undervaluing vehicles — allegations the Mohameds have vehemently denied.

Vehicles listed in the GRA’s claim include:

• 2020 Ferrari PAD 5000 (Hana Mohamed) – $479M in disputed taxes
• 2023 Rolls Royce PAE 5000 (Bibi Mohamed) – $320M
• 2020 Lamborghini Roadster PZZ 4000 (Azruddin Mohamed) – $371M
• 2023 Range Rover PAC 9000 (Leslie Khan) – $61M
• 2021 Toyota Land Cruisers PAB 3000 & 4000 (Azruddin Mohamed) – $49M combined

Judiciary Rejects Pre-Trial Seizure

High Court Judge Gino Persaud had previously ruled that maintaining the status quo — allowing the Mohameds to retain the vehicles — was necessary in the interest of justice. The Appeal Court agreed, noting the GRA had not proven why the assets should be seized before a full trial, particularly in the absence of a bond to secure them — a standard safeguard in such cases.

The GRA’s argument that “irrefutable evidence” of violations justified early seizure was not enough to override procedural fairness, the court indicated. The ruling is seen as a sharp judicial rebuke of what critics have called the GRA’s politically charged legal offensive.

Politics and Power in the Courtroom

Mohamed has claimed the case is politically motivated, driven by senior figures in the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) fearful of his potential political ambitions. The government has not addressed these claims directly, but the scale and profile of the case have sparked widespread public scrutiny — not just over the tax claims, but over the state’s use of power and public money.

The GRA has vowed to press on, announcing plans to challenge the High Court’s original restraining order. In an earlier statement, the agency said it was compelled to act because no bond had been filed to secure the disputed assets, and insisted the luxury vehicles were improperly acquired through false declarations.

As the tax case moves forward, the Appeal Court’s ruling has not only bought the Mohamed family time — it has intensified scrutiny of the government’s legal strategy and revived questions about the use of taxpayer dollars to fund high-stakes legal battles with political undertones.