Days before sentencing… EZjet boss makes last-ditch effort to withdraw guilty plea

Oct 24, 2014 News

---

Days before his sentencing after pleading guilty to money laundering, embezzlement and illegal wire transfers, among other financial crimes in the United States of America (USA), EZJet boss, Sonny Ramdeo, is again challenging the court to withdraw his guilty plea and is further contending that he is being prosecuted in the wrong jurisdiction.
Ramdeo this past week, filed another motion after the US Court denied his petition to withdraw his guilty plea.
According to Ramdeo, the US Constitution provides a guarantee that a defendant be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly committed, but this is not happening, since he has been moved to and is being tried in another jurisdiction.
Ramdeo also maintains that he was inadequately represented from the beginning of his incarceration and indictment.
He initially pleaded guilty in October last year and has since been fighting an uphill battle in an attempt to withdraw that guilty plea and have a fresh trial.
Following his guilty plea on an initial three counts, Ramdeo was arraigned on six more superseding counts of fraud and money laundering among other financial crimes.
Ramdeo is insisting that a defendant, prior to his guilty plea, should be made aware of all of the possible defences, and he must understand that he is giving up those defences.
He has since argued that there was a breakdown in communication between himself and his attorney, and as such, his plea was not “voluntary or knowing”.
Ramdeo contends that he at times literally had to “yell” at his attorney to get anything done, “Certainly in a working relationship, a client should not have to yell at their attorney and clearly there was a breakdown in communication as the records show.”
According to Ramdeo, a month before entering a guilty plea, the law firm representing him at the time, without his knowledge, scheduled a change of plea hearing.
Ramdeo maintains that his attorney threatened to withdraw his services if he did not agree to plead guilty on the various counts he had been accused of. He maintains that at the time he was unfamiliar with the court system and his constitutional rights, and as a result he could not inform the court of the conflict.
Ramdeo in fact claims that at the time he did not even know the district has a rule precluding a defendant from doing anything with the court once they are represented by counsel.
Ramdeo said in his motion that following the change of plea hearing, he desperately tried to make contact with the law firm representing him, to no avail. He said that the attorney only came to see him when he filed a motion to appoint a new counsel.
Ramdeo further claims that during the change of plea hearing, the interaction between the court and the attorney was vague, to the point when he was asked if he was receiving competent counsel, he said he believed so.
“In conducting the inquiry, the court never advised that the defendant was waiving his right to challenge the venue,” according to Ramdeo in his motion.
Ramdeo said the US Supreme Court has already upheld the position that “waiver of constitutional rights must be intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”
He is further contending that the US government’s evidence against him has varied over time, and used as an example, an amount said to be embezzled from the hospital chain where he was employed.
According to Ramdeo, the US Government claimed that the amount was US$25M, but the indictment makes reference to a US$20M figure. He said that to further compound the situation, the US prosecutors only have six months of bank statements, but claims the losses occurred over a two-year period.
This figure, he said, has been revised by the US Government to as much as US$27M.
Ramdeo contends that the charges against him allege that the taxes he was supposed to pay on behalf of the Hospital was not paid, but at the same time, the Government through its own records tendered, illustrated documentation to reveal that at least 80 per cent of the taxes were in fact paid over.
This evidence, he said, was never proffered until a pre-trial detention hearing.
Given his arguments as proffered in his motion, Ramdeo has since asked that the court deny the government’s motion in opposition and grant his motion, and to dismiss and vacate the guilty plea.
The US Court is to make a ruling on Ramdeo’s latest request.
Earlier this year, Ramdeo had failed in a previous attempt to have his guilty plea vacated and was even found guilty of obstruction of justice, a charge he will have to address at his sentencing.
At the time, Justice Kenneth Marra, the Presiding Judge, had found that Ramdeo did not carry his burden to show a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty and as a result his motion was denied.
Ramdeo’s troubles were escalated further as he was put on notice that at sentencing he should be prepared to address the questions of whether his advisory guideline sentencing range should be increased for obstruction of justice, based upon false testimony he presented.
Ramdeo was found to have lied to the court about representation provided to him by court-appointed lawyers.
According to Justice Marra, Ramdeo had the assistance of extremely competent counsel. He said in his ruling too, that Ramdeo was advised of the options available to him, and he chose the course of action to be taken, namely pleading guilty.
Justice Marra ruled that Ramdeo’s decision to plead guilty was made knowingly and voluntarily, after being fully advised of his options.

---

---