GBTI contempt trial…. Prosecution to reply to defence no-case submission

Jan 05, 2019 News

One month after lawyers representing top-ranking officials at the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI), presented no-case submission on behalf of their clients, yesterday Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU) Prosecutor, Patrice Henry, replied to the lawyers’ no-case submission.
The eight directors are currently before the court, charged with contempt over failing to hand over certain documents to the Special Organized Crime Unit (SOCU).
The case involves Chairman, Robin Stoby S.C; and Directors, Edward A. Beharry, Suresh Beharry, Richard Isava, Carlton James and Basil Mahadeo, along with Chief Executive Officer (ag) Shaleeza Shaw and Kathryn Eytle-McLean.

From left Suresh Beharry, Carlton James, Shaleeza Shaw, Robin Stoby and Basil Mahadeo

They all denied the charge, which alleged that on September 7, 2017 at Georgetown, they failed to comply with the production order granted by Chief Justice (ag) Roxanne George, for them to produce certain documents to head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Sydney James. The order was made on August 29, 2017.
Yesterday, when the matter was called in the courtroom of Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan, Prosecutor Henry replied to the seven grounds that were outlined by the defendants’ lawyers in their no-case submission.
On the last occasion when the matter was called, one of the lawyers representing the defendants, Attorney-at-law, Edward Luckhoo, handed over to the court a written submission on behalf of the defendants.
In the submission, the lawyers highlighted seven key grounds for their no-case submissions and he argued that it is the defence’s position that any of the grounds by themselves would be sufficient for the court to uphold the submission; that there is no case which the accused ought to be called to answer.
The lawyer added that Prosecutor Henry was unable to establish that the defendants failed to produce documents in contravention of the production order.
The lawyers went on to tell the court that the Prosecution team failed to provide to the court all the documents that they would have received from the defendants.
The lawyer argued that if the prosecution did not tender all the documents received, then it would be difficult to determine whether or not there was compliance with the production order.
He further went on to tell the court that the evidence led by the prosecution failed to prove that there was reasonable cause for non-compliance of the production order.
Luckhoo noted that the production order must be clear and capable of being complied with in its entirety, before adding that the production order before the courts is flawed.
The matter was then adjourned to February 4 after the lawyers representing the defendants asked the court for three weeks to reply to the Prosecution submission, if there is a need.
According to information, from a probe into US$500M that the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) handled as far back as 2010, SOCU submitted files to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), recommending contempt charges against GBTI’s eight directors.

Richard Isava and Edward A. Beharry

This was after the bank and SOCU were locked in a battle over information concerning the GRDB accounts. SOCU is contending that the bank failed or stalled handing over certain banking records concerning GRDB.
SOCU, an arm of the Guyana Police Force, also said that the bank gave all kinds of excuses, and even destroyed pertinent records relating to GRDB.
SOCU reportedly argued that other banks complied, but it was finding it difficult with GBTI.
SOCU received four court orders, including one from the high court, asking that GBTI hand over the information.
Late August last year, the acting Chief Justice Roxane George, granted production orders to SOCU, giving the bank a week to hand over certain information. That deadline expired in early September 2017, and the bank was reportedly granted some extra time.
However, the deadline elapsed and SOCU prepared files recommending the charges of contempt against the directors.
Under tough anti-money laundering laws, once the court orders are granted, financial institutions are reportedly bound to provide information.
In this case, the money is not from private accounts, but rather from the US dollar and other accounts of GRDB, a state entity.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News