CHIEF Justice (ag), Roxane George, last week, dismissed the case filed by Cuban national, Yuri Garcia Dominguez and his wife, Ateeka Ishmael, who had filed an application in the High Court seeking to discontinue charges and investigations against them.  The Chief Justice, in her ruling, noted that the couple did not produce any evidence to support the reliefs sought. On September 14, attorney-at-law Dexter Todd, who is representing the couple, filed judicial review proceedings in the High Court, asking that all charges and investigations against his clients be discontinued immediately. The couple had also asked the High Court to order the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue all charges against them.

The couple is alleged to have been operating their investment company, Accelerated Capital Firm Inc (ACFI), here in Guyana, from as far back as 2017 without the required licence from the Guyana Securities Council (GSC). They were accused of swindling monies from 86 victims in a multi-million dollar scam. In response to their submissions to the court, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, sought a declaration that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction to grant the orders sought by the couple. He also sought an order to strike out the Fixed Date Application on the grounds that it is an abuse of the process of the court and that it discloses no cause of action. On December 9, the Chief Justice upheld the Attorney General’s submissions, dismissing the case filed by the couple. In the course of her ruling, she stated that the couple failed to adduce any evidence in support of the reliefs sought in their Fixed Date Application against the Attorney General, Commissioner of Police and Director of Public Prosecutions.

Costs were awarded to the Attorney General in the sum of $250,000 and that same is to be paid on or before December 31, 2020. The orders, filed on behalf of Dominguez and Ishamel, included: (a) an Order of Prohibition against the Commissioner of Police from instituting or continuing to institute further charges against them; (b) another Order of Prohibition against the Top Cop, restraining him from commanding or inviting private investors who are contracted with ACFI based on a private contract executed between them and the investors.

They also sought: (c) an Order of Prohibition against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), from directing the institution of criminal charges or further criminal charges against them in relation to contracts signed by his wife in her capacity as Director of ACFI, a limited liability company and private investors, and (d) an Order of Prohibition against the Attorney General, restraining him from issuing or continuing to issue or directing or to direct the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU), Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), Guyana Securities Council, Central Bank and the Guyana Police Force from investigating or continuing to investigate the contracts and terms of the contracts between his clients and the investors.

Finally, the couple, through their lawyer, also sought: (e) an Order of Mandamus issued against the Attorney General, his servants and/or agents and/or any agency acting in conjunction with or through the Attorney General to unfreeze and release the bank accounts held at Bank of Baroda in the name of ACFI, and (f) another Order of Mandamus issued against the Attorney General, his servants and/or agents and/or any agency acting in conjunction with or through the Attorney General to unfreeze and release the bank accounts held in their names at Demerara Bank Guyana and Republic Bank Guyana.

As it concerns Order (a), the Chief Justice stated that there was no law that permits an order of Prohibition against the Commissioner of Police from instituting or continuing to institute criminal charges and in any case the Applicants failed to adduce evidence supporting the order sought. Furthermore, for Order (b), the Applicants asked for leave of the Court to withdraw the said Order sought after conceding that the Order was unclear and would prove futile if granted. For Order (c), the Applicants were unable to address the Court on that Order when asked to provide a response.

There was no evidence to show that the Attorney General gave any such directions as alleged in Order (d). And as it concerns Orders (e) and (f), the Applicants admitted to the Court that the Orders sought were not within the discretion of the Attorney General but within the ambit of the Central Bank of Guyana and the Orders sought were therefore misconceived. The Chief Justice found that the Attorney General has no authority to unfreeze funds held in the Applicants bank accounts.