Carvil Duncan trial…Monies were property of Republic Bank, not GPL

Aug 18, 2016 News

– Attorney argues, while asking for case to be thrown out

Defence Counsel Charles Ramson Jr. is contending that the monies allegedly stolen from the Guyana

CHARGED: Carvil Duncan

Power and Light (GPL) by his client, Carvil Duncan, is not the property of the power company, but that of Republic Bank.
The Attorney made this contention yesterday, at the close of the prosecution and defence’s cases. Magistrate Leron Daly is presiding over the matter which is being prosecuted by Police Inspector Shevon Jupiter.
It is alleged that on March 31, 2015, at Georgetown, Duncan stole the sum of $984,900 property of GPL.
Ramson’s submission was in relation to the first allegation in which Duncan is charged with Simple Larceny, Contrary to Section 164 of the Criminal Law Offences Act Chapter 8:01.
Under this Section of the Constitution, Ramson asserted that his client cannot be charged with stealing monies by way of cheque, as stated in the facts of the case.
He said that Duncan was an authorized signatory for GPL’s Republic Bank Account.
Ramson said that once money is deposited in a bank it is no longer the property of the customer (whether depositor or account holder), but property of the bank.
“As soon as money is deposited in a customer’s account, the money becomes the property of the bank and not the customer. If money is loaned to a person and delivered to a person, the money belongs to the borrower as a debtor and not the lender as a creditor.”
The lawyer argued that the evidence in the case cannot and does not show that any money was stolen from GPL, since based on the prosecution’s evidence the account of GPL, held at Republic Bank, was debited to pay Duncan, who was merely a creditor to the account. He added that the power company had merely a chosen action in relation to monies held in its account with the Bank, and did not have any ownership or possession of the monies.

Attorney Charles Ramson Jr.

Ramson explained, “What transpired in this case, is that the bank paid money on a cheque on GPL’s account held at Republic Bank on the basis of the authorized signatories of GPL. The prosecution has not seen it fit to charge the defendant (Carvil Duncan) with an offence of stealing the bank’s property (money), since the defendant was a duly authorized signatory to the GPL’s account held at the bank.
Duncan, 73, of 1977 Williamstad Road, Festival City, Georgetown, is also accused of conspiring with a former senior GPL official to steal the sum of $27,757,547, property of GPL between May 7 and 8, 2015.
DISMISSED
On this basis, Ramson submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offences and asked for the charges to be dismissed, deeming them misconceived.
According to Ramson, the prosecution’s case relied on the pursuance of the By-laws of GPL and whether Duncan received authorization from the shareholders of GPL.
During the trial, Former Prime Minister Samuel Hinds who had oversight over GPL had testified that former Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon spoke on behalf of the president and he had enormous responsibilities and powers. Hinds further testified that decisions made by Winston Brassington, former Chairman of GPL’s Board, in relation to affairs of the company, could be either done in writing or orally, and that he sometimes became aware of the decisions subsequently to its approval and implementation.
However, Ramson highlighted that investigating rank (IR) Police Inspector Kedarnauth Bejaimal failed to question Dr. Roger Luncheon, whom he said communicated the decision to Winston Brassington to pay director’s fees.
He said that the IR also failed to question other shareholder representatives, namely Mr. Irfaan Ali and Mr. Nadir.
The lawyer told the court that Dr. Luncheon and Brassington should have been called to give evidence in the trial. Ramson stated that the absence of evidence from Dr. Luncheon leaves the possibility that he could have communicated the authorization to Duncan to pay the retroactive sum. He said that there is also the possibility that either a cabinet decision was communicated to Brassington and transmitted to Duncan, and/or the chairman authorized Duncan to make the retroactive payments.
Ramson added that the absence of evidence from the shareholder representatives leaves the possibility that a shareholder decision was taken and communicated to either Brassington and/or Duncan, authorizing retroactive payments for a specific period.
“In fact, they were not even questioned or asked to submit a statement. When asked why they were not asked to do so, Mr. Bejaimal stated that they were not persons of interest. Further, Mr. Bejaimal stated that he did not even enquire who the shareholder representatives were,” Ramson detailed.
The lawyer stated that as the “subject Minister,” the former prime minister had no authority to approve remuneration and had no authority to speak on behalf of the cabinet.
The trial continues tomorrow when the prosecution is expected to reply.