Section 21, The Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2005

(1) A competent authority, upon application to a courtand satisfying the court that the Attorney-General has charged or is about to charge a person with money laundering, may apply for an order freezing the property of, or in the possession or under the control of that person, wherever it may be. (2) The court, in making any order freezing the property of any person referred to in subsection (1), may give directions as to– (a) the duration, subject to subsection (3), of the freezing order; (b) the disposal of that property for the purpose of– (i) determining any dispute as to the ownership of or other interest in the property or any part thereof; (ii) its proper administration during the period of freezing; (iii) the payment of debts incurred in good faith due to creditors prior to the order; (iv) the payment of moneys to that person for the reasonable subsistence of that person and his family; (v) the payment of the costs and other expenses of that person to defend criminal proceedings against him. (3) An order made under subsection (l) shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of seventy two hours following the hour the order was made should the person against whom such order was made not have been charged with the offence of money laundering within that time. (4) The Government of Sierra Leone or the competent authority shall not be liable for any damages or cost arising directly or indirectly from the making of a freezing order unless it can be proved that the application for the freezing of the property was not made in good faith. Freezing of assets of suspects. No. 6 Anti-Money Laundering Act 2005No. 6 Anti-Money Laundering Act 2005 1918 (5) Where the court makes an order for the administration of frozen property, the person charged with the administration of the property shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the property or for the cost of proceedings taken to establish a claim to the property or to any interest in the property unless the court in which the claim is made is of the opinion that the person has been guilty of negligence in respect of the taking of custody and control of the property.