–released on self-bail for contempt of court

EIGHT directors of the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) were on Mondy hauled before the court for failing to comply with a production order issued by acting Chief Justice, Roxane George-Wiltshire.

Their being placed before the courts is as a result of an ongoing Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) investigation into the US$500M fraud at the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB).

On Monday, 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 were all jointly charged and placed before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.
Eytle-McLean was charged in absentia, as she is currently out of the country on vacation.

The charge against the directors says that on or before August 29 at Georgetown, they failed to comply with a production order issued by the acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire and served by a marshal of the High Court 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.

The officers all denied the charge, and their attorney, Nigel Hughes, made a lengthy bail application for their release.
According to Hughes, the matter is currently before the High Court and the bank was given an extension date to hand over the documents. With no objection raised by the SOCU prosecutor, Patrice Henry, the bank officials were released on self-bail and the matter was adjourned to November 20.

SOCU as part of its probe into the US$500M GRDB fraud case, had moved to the court to obtain an order instructing the GBTI to produce all the required documents to aid in the investigation.
Recently, the Bank made an application before the Acting Chief Justice to be relieved from the production of the documents that were referred to in August 29, on the grounds that they have either been destroyed by the applicant after the applicant’s retention period had expired, or they have been lost and cannot be found despite diligent efforts to find them. The bank failed in its bid to be relieved from producing the documents.

The bank is said to have an internal policy with regard to the retention of documents for its customers, however, the Anti- Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) legislation provides for banks and or financial institutions to maintain records for their customers up to a period of 10 years.
As a result, the Attorney General’s Chambers contends that the bank’s internal policy cannot supersede that of the law.
The bank’s application spoke specifically to documents which the bank thought have been destroyed after the retention period, as well as those which have been lost, likely to misfiling, and requested an extension or stay of three weeks from the date of the Production Order, to enable it to find and produce the documents which the production refers.
That matter is adjourned until November 10.

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 US dollar and other accounts of GRDB, a state entity.