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 continued on Friday before Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan.

The content of an affidavit is being contested by lawyers for the six Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) managers, who are charged with contempt for failing to hand over documents in relation to a probe being conducted by the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU).

Those on trial are: 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 is the result of an ongoing SOCU investigation into the US$500M fraud at the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB).

SOCU prosecutor Patrice Henry tendered a sworn affidavit which is among exhibit G1- G-2. In the affidavit is the admission that documents which the bank had to provide were either lost, destroyed or cannot be located.
The defence attorney requested a voir dire to be conducted to determine the admissibility of the affidavit.

Patrice Henry, SOCU Prosecutor, objected to the court going into the voir dire; however, the chief magistrate granted the request.

Henry called one witness Ramesh Persaud, Commissioner of Oath to affidavits attached to the law chamber of Edward Luckhoo, Senior Counsel.

Persaud testified that he recognised the affidavit to be his. He said that no complaint was made by the defendants; and even if one had been made, he would have referred the person to attorney Edward Luckhoo.

Defence attorney makes no-case submission

Patrice Henry told the court that there is a difference between a confession and admission; and there is no need for a voir dire to be conducted since it was not a statement taken after caution, but an allegation put and taken by law enforcement officers and no threats and violence were used

Henry further stated that the affidavit was made freely and voluntarily by the defendants and they realised that certain documents were misplaced.
Chief Magistrate Ann McLennan is to rule on the next court appearance on whether or not she will rely on the content of the affidavit.

The matter was adjourned to November 09, 2018.

The defendants 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 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 GBTI directors are represented by attorney SC Ian Chan, Roger Yearwood, Nigel Hughes, Steven Fraser and Edward Luckhoo.

The officers all denied the charge and their attorney Nigel Hughes made a lengthy bail application for their release.

SOCU as part of its probe into the US$500M GRDB fraud case had moved to the court to obtain an order instructing 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, 2017, 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 contend that the bank’s internal policy cannot supersede that of the law.

The bank’s application spoke specifically to documents which the bank thought had 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.

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 the GRDB, a state entity.