A man cleared of money-laundering charges has been allowed to fight for more than $300,000 of seized cash to be returned to him.Kenith Bulford told the Supreme Court the money was forfeited by another defendant before he could make any applications to resist the move.Chief Justice Narinder Hargun found Mr Bulford should have been given an opportunity to address the court on the cash and set aside the forfeiture order.The court heard in a hearing on December 2 that Mr Bulford was arrested at the airport in March 2013 on suspicion of money-laundering offences along with Wanda Bowen and Melina Bean.Ms Bowen and Ms Bean were found to have $314,950 in American currency hidden in sneakers packed in their suitcase.They also had a total of $1,478 on them.Mr Bulford’s DNA was found on the money seized from Ms Bowen and Ms Bean, and he was found to have $10,040 in cash on him.Mr Bulford was charged separately from his co-accused and the two women appeared in court more than a year before Mr Bulford.Ms Bowen pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2013 and consented to the forfeiture of the $314,950, which ended up in the Confiscated Assets Fund.Mr Bulford was tried in 2015 and he said all of the seized cash belonged to him, but insisted it was earned by legitimate means.A jury later found him not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime by a unanimous verdict.The $10,040 found on Mr Bulford was returned to him a day after the verdict, but the $314,950 was not because it had already been forfeited.Lawyer Jerome Lynch, who appeared for Mr Bulford, asked the court to set aside the forfeiture order.He argued that Mr Bulford was not given notice of the forfeiture order, despite prosecutors’ insistence that the money belonged to him, and he was not given a chance to argue against it.Mr Bulford said in an affidavit that he did not know Ms Bowen would plead guilty or consent to the forfeiture.Alan Richards, for the Crown, said that Mr Bulford had not claimed the $314,950 was his until his trial, which came after the money was forfeited.But Mr Justice Hargun ruled that Mr Bulford should have been notified about the forfeiture and given a chance to make submissions.He said: “I am satisfied that the court was in possession of sufficient material, in relation to the potential interest of Mr Buford in the funds and that he should have been given notice so as to allow him to make any representations to the court he considered appropriate.Mr Justice Hargun concluded: “In any event, having regard to the fact that Mr Bulford maintains in sworn evidence that he was wholly unaware of the forfeiture proceedings and that he has been denied an opportunity to make representations to the court, in relation to his interests in the funds, he should be afforded such an opportunity.”• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.