The Entebbe Mayor Fabrice Brad Rulinda has been drawn into a High Court ruling involving an international gold transaction that bore the hallmarks of money laundering linked to illicit mineral trade in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The judgment, delivered on March 16, 2026, by Justice Stephen Mubiru of the Commercial Division, found that large sums deposited into the mayor’s bank account were suspicious and suggested involvement in a financial arrangement connected to actors linked to armed rebels in eastern DRC.
Rulinda had sued Stanbic Bank Uganda for reversing $73,262.5 (UGX 271.65 million) that was credited to his account in 2017. However, while the court found the bank partially breached its contract by returning the funds without a court order, it ultimately dismissed the mayor’s lawsuit.
Suspicious Transfers Raise Alarm
Court records show that in August 2017, two large deposits totaling $496,220 (UGX 1.83 billion) were wired into Rulinda’s account at Stanbic Bank’s Bugolobi Village Mall branch. The funds, sent through Citibank on behalf of Green Global Corporation, were inconsistent with the account’s normal activity.
Within days, most of the money was withdrawn in cash, prompting the bank to report the activity to the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA) as suspicious.
Gold Deal Tied to M23 Rebels
During proceedings, the court reviewed Rulinda’s statements to police, in which he admitted acting as a broker in a deal involving gold linked to the M23 rebel group in eastern DRC. He acknowledged that funds were routed through his account before being handed to the rebels.
Justice Mubiru noted:
“This transaction … does not generally look like normal commercial activity. It is criminal money laundering dressed up to look like normal commercial activity.”
The court further highlighted that the UN Security Council has condemned the M23 movement and imposed sanctions on its members.
“Wilful Blindness” to Source of Funds
Rulinda offered multiple explanations for the funds, including gold trading, oil deals, and construction projects, but provided no documentation. Justice Mubiru described this as “wilful blindness,” where an individual deliberately avoids confirming facts that suggest criminal activity.
The court identified several red flags:
- Large deposits inconsistent with account history
- Rapid cash withdrawals
- Lack of supporting documentation
- Involvement of parties connected to illicit mineral trade
Justice Mubiru concluded:
“The plaintiff’s impugned conduct amounted to money laundering.”
Stanbic Bank’s Role
Stanbic Bank had frozen the account and reversed one of the transfers after suspecting a potential investment scam. While the court confirmed the bank acted reasonably in reporting suspicious activity, it criticized the bank for returning funds without judicial authorization.
Why the Mayor Lost
Despite the bank’s breach of contract, the court dismissed Rulinda’s claim under the legal principle “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”, which bars enforcement of claims arising from illegal activity.
“The plaintiff can neither maintain an action against the defendant nor is he entitled to the remedies sought,” Justice Mubiru ruled.
Costs were awarded to Stanbic Bank.
Legal Battle May Continue
Rulinda, through his lawyer Isaac Ssali Mugerwa of Bluebell Legal Advocates, intends to appeal, arguing the High Court overstepped by suggesting money laundering in a civil case without a criminal trial or conviction.
The appeal will also challenge the bank’s unilateral reversal of funds, the shifting of the burden of proof onto the plaintiff, and the delay in delivering the judgment nearly four years after proceedings closed.
Observers say the case underscores the delicate balance banks must maintain between combating financial crime and respecting customer rights. Its outcome could set a key precedent for Uganda’s banking sector on handling suspicious transactions and anti-money-laundering enforcement.
