“laws”. Furthermore, any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions can only be justified if it serves a legitimate public (or general) interest. Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide what is “in the public interest”. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions”. Having regard to the above analysis, it is imperative to determine whether or not the continued act of the Respondent in confiscating the Applicants funds on reasonable suspicion is in the public interest and in accordance with the law. 84. The Respondent contends that after the registration of the said companies, the Applicant did not carry out a single business activity from the date of its registration till date, instead it operated accounts in which between August 2012-May 2013 a period of ten (10) months, the Applicant’s account was credited by inward transfers totalling USD14, 101,326.00 from Nigeria, UAE and Switzerland, whilst outward transfers totalling USD17, 095,299.00 were made during the same period to accounts to India, Singapore, United Kingdom, Nigeria, UAE, France and Switzerland. 85. Furthermore, the Respondent contends that with the deposit of the Three Million Dollars (US$3,000,000.00), it became important to place the Applicant account under alert as suspicious transfer with the possibility of money laundering activities. The respondent action is thus to prevent money laundering. 86. Respondent further contends that Applicant failed to comply with the National law specifically, Section 2 (5) of the Anti-money laundering and combating the financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Regulations, also the Tax law on remittance of tax and in addition failed to provide evidence of legitimate business activities carried out within the jurisdiction of the Respondent as required by law. 24