Case of GBTI directors vs SOCU adjourned

THE trial of eight directors of the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI), accused of failing to comply with a production order issued by acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire is adjourned until April 10.

Those on trial are: GBTI directors, Edward A Beharry, Suresh Beharry, Kathryn Eytle-McLean, Richard Isava, Carlton James and Basil Mahadeo; its chairman Robin Stoby and acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Shaleeza Shaw.
The accused being placed before the courts resulted from an ongoing Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) investigation into the US$500M fraud at the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB).

The trial is being presided over by Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan, with evidence being led by SOCU prosecutor, Patrice Henry.
The GBTI directors are represented by Ian Chang, S.C., Roger Yearwood, Nigel Hughes, Steven Fraser and Edward Luckhoo.
The final witness–forensic financial analysts Sherronie James–who is attached to SOCU, was giving her evidence in chief when a defence attorney objected to the woman testifying in the matter.

The attorney contended that the witness’ evidence had nothing to do with the particulars of the charge. However, the magistrate overruled the defence’s preliminary submission and will allow James to continue her testimony on April 10.

In a previous hearing, Court Marshal Nelisha Peterkin; Superintendent of Police, Robert Tyndall; Sydney James, Head of SOCU; and Superintendent Brian Vieira testified.
The eight directors are jointly charged with failing to comply with a production order issued by the acting Chief Justice and served by a marshal of the High Court, ordering them to produce certain named documents, within seven days to SOCU head, Assistant Commissioner of Police Sydney James.

It is alleged that they contravened the order without reasonable cause.
SOCU, as part of its probe into the fraud case, had moved to the court to obtain an order instructing GBTI to produce all the required documents to aid in the investigation.
Under tough anti-money laundering laws, once court orders are granted, financial institutions are reportedly bound to provide information. In this case, the monies are not from private accounts, but rather from the U.S. dollar and other accounts of GRDB–a state entity.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.