Patrick Toppin (l) Oliver Jordan (r) CLICO Judicial Managers
One of the most discussed issues in Barbados in the six months has been the CLICO Forensic Audit Report. The Nation Newspaper has cherry picked and published those parts which make for ‘good’ reading. BU is pleased to post the full report for ALL Barbadians to read.
Very Interesting David. Why isn’t paris locked up all now based on this.
Why would one want to suppress this document beats me ?
This requires a financial mind….and a willingness to divulge.
Note page 8 which details party transactions. On what basis were CLICO assets sold to Parris?
Was there a tendering process?
Was the vendor listing mentioned in the report completed?
What other party transactions were identified?
@ David (BU):
I make the following enquiry under reservation and not armed with current information in respect of recent developments with CLICO and its JM:
What is the employment relationship between Terrence Thornhill and CLICO Barbados? Is he still receiving a six figure salary out of the continuing premiums paid by the poor suckers called policyholders? After all, Thornhill is the accounting man and financial advisor behind all the financial ‘uncertainties’ and “un accountabilities’ contained in the report. He is also the man that was charged for allegedly breaking the rules provided the Insurance Act along with Leroy Parris.
If he is still officially still on the CLICO payroll it speaks a lot about the real motive of the JM.
If he is still employed what, is Mr. Thornhill doing at CLICO to justify his continuing highly paid professional association? One wonders why the JM would wish to maintain this relationship!
What are June Fowler and her interest group (BIPA) doing about this drain of policyholders’ premiums going to someone for doing diddly-squat? Since she has time to be highly critical of the government doesn’t she think it would be in the policyholders’ best interests to make serious representations and public outcry in order to plug this financial leak or siphoning off of premiums as hush money to the lackey of con men with the connivance of a board of directors?
@Miller
A question good about TT. Perhaps he represents a source of ‘institutional memory’ which the JMs are loath to jettison at this time.
About Fowler, she is out of her league. Compare here posture and credentials to her T&T counterpart and this is an easy conclusion.
It is instructive that the Redjet ticket holders who are owed three or four hundred dollars are making more noise than Clico policyholders owed millions. They need to get their middle and upperclass asses on the streets and protest.
“In certain cases (at least until the appointment of the Oversight Committee) the wording of the Minutes suggests that the Board was informed of transactions only after CIL or CHBL was committed to them by Executive Management. In other cases, the extent to which the Board was consulted and provided its input and approval before concluding transactions, if at all, is not clear from the Minutes”
Shouldn’t the Board have resigned or were they just satisfied to collect their director’s fees and not rock the boat lest they be removed and replaced by another pliant Board member.
How many were Directors of related companies?
Not just Parris but the whole Board of Directors should be held accountable and if found negligent feel the full force of the law. Ok we know that will never happen but at least some wishful thinking.
@Nostradamus
BU commenters have had their say on the matter you raise. Many of our prominent citizens have sat on CLICO Board full in the knowledge that they should have resigned but compromised perhaps of being addicted to the ‘rewards’ of being on the Board.
They reneged on their fiduciary responsible.
We done know Stuart cannot ..I repeat cannot expose the Deloitte Judicial Manager’s Report…..the DAMAGE would be TOO great..but just playing devil’s advocate as wid the so called FBI files….suppose he did and The $3.3 million turned out to be $53.3 Million…..what would be his position as to allowing Mona Lisa her ticket ? What about the much touted Integrity Legislation ?Man things would be so hot about here….not a fellow from DEM side would win a seat.But look at it this way….not many going win anyway so he might as well allow the report to go public and come clean….Maybe people may say this is a man of principles and can be trusted..using a reverse psychology strategy……who knows it may allow him to win his seat.
What you do others think ?
This Clico matter and the association between key government officials and Parris is going to be a thorn in the DLP during this general elections campaign. No FBI investigation can match with the Clico scandle. the upcoming campaigning for the next general elections is going to be HOT HOT HOT
Man Scout
Dun Kno…..this is the reason why elections going call…when D baller run out..and the kite to far out….to haul in if there was a shifted wind…Look DEM already lost the element of surprise….which has been key in past elections….Boss….they need a strategist…They have served it up on a platter …
If I remember correctly the FSC was supposed to take the baton and continue the investigation. Does anyone know if this is the case???
David | July 5, 2012 at 6:50 AM |
“A question good about TT. Perhaps he represents a source of ‘institutional memory’ which the JMs are loath to jettison at this time.”
What institutional memory? An alleged one of exceedingly poor financial management and accounting, unaccounted assets, collusion with other executive management to bribe government regulatory officials, arrange the transactions to finance the political campaigns of corrupt politicians from both sides of the political divide through money laundering schemes to aggrandize the personal wealth of the same corrupt politicians and generally complicit in schemes to deprive policy holders of their hard earn savings and making pensioners impecunious in their golden years.
Is that the kind of expertise and experience the JM need to make what is left of the vulture feeding carcass ready to be offloaded to a speculator Trinidadian buyer? The intent of such a fire sale would be for the cannibalizing of the real estate assets. And with the support of the government to save political face by claiming it has solved the CLICO problem the poor policyholders and pensioners would end up holding the shitty end of the stick with crooks and criminals sailing off into the sunset with impunity to gloat in material depravity on the savings of naïve people who trusted their financial advisor black brothers and greedy employers.
Tell me crooks out dey and steel in dey. Break down dis book of revelations for a poor small pensioner like me. A lot of us put in we two cents worth in dat business. Seems like everything gone down in Maxwell Pond.
Lord have mercy.Make peace,Justice should be done though the heavens may fall.
SWhat are June Fowler and her interest group (BIPA) doing about this drain of policyholders’ premiums going to someone for doing diddly-squat?
surprised June Fowler not announced as a BLP candidate its clear she’s been promised a feed at the trough by the BLP if Bajans make the big mistake of letting Owing Arthur back into GOB.
Wow – just love page 12. “The minutes of the Directors meeting indicate they were told that Parris made a decision to purchase a Lear Jet”.
Why have a Board? How in the world could Parris make a decision like that without board consultation.
The problem with a lt o BOARDS in Barbados is that too many so called ‘Bright ,’Intelligent’ and ‘Qualified’ professional people adorn boards. In any situation that makes for off balance or top heavy decisions. It does not seem like ordinary persons or less qualified mortals can good ideas or present a different perspective on the way boards should be run, Bare ‘Big Shots were on that CLICO Board,
Sometimes its better to get the opinion of an unlearned jackass who does not have an axe to grind or a King to dance before.
Although it’s interesting to see the report, I am not sure there is much in it that has not already seen the light of day through the articles in the Nation.
It does look quite clear that CIL was funding loss making businesses and booking high rates of (notional) interest against those loans.
It really was a Ponzi scheme!
@David. Thanks for this. I have finally had the time to read it properly and it poses a lot of questions, not least for the DPP to investigate and see if criminal prosecutions can be sustained.
I re-state and re-stress that I am apolitical with a hereditary affiliation to the BLP. Not the DLP. But my first loyalty is to my country, hence my apolitical position. I believe that politicians are, with alarmingly few exceptions, incompetents fueled by self-interest.
Having examined the document provided here, I can see no evidence or smoking gun indicating wrong-doing on the part of the late David Thompson or his law firm and anyone who tries to use that document to infer or impute such is suffering, at best, from political wishful-thinking and, at worst, a desire to commit actionable defamation. Therefore, it would appear to me that the political smoking gun that some had wished for is nothing more than an empty water pistol.
I have been following with great interest the Barclays Bank scandal which has engulfed the UK and the USA, with massive investigations being carried out by the USA and UK authories into the culture and practices of many banks, particularly Barclays. The FBI is investigating the matter and will report in due course. The rot seems to go right to the very top, both in the banks and politically. The time frame was 2005 – 2008. If we look at Barclays in conjunction with CLICO, we will see that it is the banks and the financiers, not the lawyers who, motivated by greed, expediency and self-interest, have landed us in the worldwide financial mess we are in.
Therefore, having read the CLICO report and found it shocking and deserving of criminal investigation and, if warranted, prosecution, it does not point any liability or ethical wrong-doing at Thompson and Associates. I now await the publication of the “missing” FBI report and will review that also with great interest also.
@Amused
A bold conclusion especially when the report is lucid about a 3.3 million payment Thompson and Associates and that payment identified as part payment of a gratuity payment for Leroy Parris.
“Therefore, having read the CLICO report and found it shocking and deserving of criminal investigation and, if warranted, prosecution, it does not point any liability or ethical wrong-doing at Thompson and Associates. I now await the publication of the “missing” FBI report and will review that also with great interest also”
mr thompson is no fool and would obviously leve no criminal trail to his complicity in the shenanigans of mr parris but everthing thing done legally is not necessarily right and moral particularly from someone entrusted with the leadership of a nation and i fmr parris is guilty of anything and mr thompson was mr parris legal advisor as intimated; how can he be excused from knowledge of mr parris alleged wrongdoings.how would you describe acting as a conduit to skim 3.3 million with more to come from a beleaguered company propped up with the hardearned savings of suffering policy holders like me and the vast sums paid t mr thompson’s law firm over the years in the face of these infelicities by mr parris ? man, amused. gimme a break and wheel and deal again.
@Capone
“Why have a Board? How in the world could Parris make a decision like that without board consultation.”
I know it’s a rehtorical question but….maybe, just maybe, the directors were collecting their director fees and if anyone of them rocked the boat they would be thrown overboard. From what I read in the press some of them were directors over many years.
If the Directors owed their sinecure to Parris why should we be surprised if they refrained from biting the hand that fed them?
@ Amused
How does payment for legal fees become a gratuity?
@Amused
From my limited information of these transactions that $3.333 million smells like money laundering.
The terms of reference of the report are so limited – basically to a review of just the related party transactions. Why? It’s like the local accountants were protecting their own. And yet they still found tangible evidence of wrong-doing.
BIPA should be calling for a FULL forensic audit of all the activities of the company. Christ knows what they would uncover. And they need to start filing legal claims against the auditors, the actuaries and the directors.
The policyholders are f*cked anyway, the regional governments are not going to support the latest Deloitte pie-in-the-sky proposals, and the thing is headed for a fire-sale liquidation, so what do they have to lose?
@David. Not a really a bold conclusion at all. Solicitors’ clients’ accounts yield a much higher return on investment than just handing the money over to a financial institution. Let me explain.
You want a mortgage to buy a house, you can go to the Bank and pay their interest rate, which means that they loan you at about 11% per annum the money they have on deposit from their clients, to whom they pay a return of 2.5%. Which means that the Bank is pocketing 8.5% interest.
However, you go to a solicitor and seek the same loan from their clients account, they in turn contact the clients who have money with them and ask if any of them would be willing to loan you the money for you to buy your house. If they say that they will loan the money, then the solicitor draws up a mortgage between you and their client at an interest rate of, let us say, 9%. That way, you are getting your loan for 9% instead of 11% and the client who loans you the money is receiving 9% interest, rather than 2.5% – less, of course, legal fees.
I stress that the above figures are merely illustrative.
Therefore, it is not at all uncommon for someone receiving bonuses or gratuities to instruct that these be paid into their solicitor’s clients’ account. I perceive no wrong-doing or even the slightest whiff of questionable actions in this transaction. What I do reflect on is the fact that Mr Parris seems not to have had sufficient confidence in CLICO to invest his gratuity with CLICO. But, as far as I am concerned, I see absolutely nothing strange or out of order in the fact that these gratuities were made to Thompson and Associates. None at all.
@Watching. How money-laundering? The money comes from an authenticated source into another authenticated source that could not have accepted it without the required paperwork attesting to its non-criminal origin. Let me assure you that had this due diligence not been done and had one single form not been satisfactorily completed, given the involvement of Thompson and Associates, the opposition would have been all over it.
Let’s face it, heretofore it has been hinted and suggested that the $3.3 million represented legal fees paid to Thompson and Associates. It now transpires that it was no such thing and that Thompson and Associates were simply fulfilling their obligation to their client by receiving monies ON HIS BEHALF and AT HIS INSTRUCTIONS. No smoking guns, no mystery, no wrong-doing ether actual or ethical. But STANDARD solicitor-client practice.
I have to wonder whether the much heralded FBI report will be so forgiving and I am quite sure that the PM would not have raised that particular issue in the House, unless he had a certified copy of it in his hot little hand. I cannot wait to see what it says.
“I see absolutely nothing strange or out of order in the fact that these gratuities were made to Thompson and Associates. None at all”
but there is a payment to david thompson per se; would i be wrong in the prevailing circumstances to draw a negative inference?
Amused wrote:
.You want a mortgage to buy a house, you can go to the Bank and pay their interest rate, which means that they loan you at about 11% per annum the money they have on deposit from their clients, to whom they pay a return of 2.5%. Which means that the Bank is pocketing 8.5% interest.
Actually the bank is pocketing far more than the split of the interest between the 11% charge to the borrower and the 2.5% return they give to the saver. That’s because banks are, for the most part, not loaning out the money they already have on deposit in their depositors’ savings accounts, term deposits etc. Actually, by far most of the money loaned by banks is newly created money they create out of nothing when loans are granted by the banks to borrowers. Even the bank of England and Federal Reserve in the US agree that this is the case, as the following video explains:
“How money-laundering? The money comes from an authenticated source into another authenticated source that could not have accepted it without the required paperwork attesting to its non-criminal origin.”
The money had a criminal origin. It was proceeds of the EFPA Ponzi scheme.
You can watch the remaining 4 videos in the 5 part Problem With the Money Supply series (Part 1 above) by going here:
@balance. I may have misread, but my recollection is that the report states that the monies were paid to David Thompson/Thompson Associates for Mr Parris. The report also states (to the best of my recollection and you may correct me if I am wrong to spare my (today) fragile brain cells from having to wade through it again) that the cheque was deposited by Thompson and Associates, NOT David Thompson. So even if the cheque was made out to David Thompson, to suggest that the monies were paid to David Thompson, instead as the report states (being for Parris) is hair splitting not worthy of a lawyer, but of a spinning financier. If you watched the re-run of the three hour UK examination of Barclays Bank chief, Bob Diamond, you will see what I mean by “spinning financier”.
@Green Monkey. You are, of course, absolutely right and I was merely simplifying the actual process. Can we agree that: (a) the bank pays 2.5% return on the money we give it to hold for us; and (b) the bank charges us about 11.5% on the money we borrow from it? If that is agreed between us, can we then agree that if a solicitor’s client for whom the solicitor holds funds in his clients’ account is willing to loan money to a borrower at, let us say, 9%, receiving (let us say) 8% per annum interest on that money, then both lender and borrower are far better off than they would be by going to the bank? But more specifically, the lender is much better off? And if we agree on that, can we agree that it would be prudent that if Mr Parris wanted to maximise the return on the gratuity to be paid to him by CLICO in this way (rather than, as so many others, see it disappear with little chance of recovery, into the coffers of CLICO) it would make FAR more sense to ask that the $3.3 million be paid directly to his solicitor? It is perfectly legal and, indeed, common practice, to do things this way. Thanks for the video links, BTW. I am very interested.
@Cynic | July 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM. All I can do is refer you to the MONEY LAUNDERING AND FINANCING OF TERRORISM (PREVENTION AND CONTROL) ACT Cap. 129 and the PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT Cap. 143. If you look these both up on the Internet, you will be able to interpret them for yourself and come to your own conclusions. I fully understand your justifiable frustration and anger. I sincerely hope that something can be done to in some way ameliorate the situation for the CLICO investors. I am just very lucky that I am not one of them. I might easily have been.
I remember that Amused also saw no need for the DLP administration to change the laws to allow the new CJ to take up the post. This looks like another of that type of legal opinion. It is however good to see how he expects the Government to spin a defence of DT and his Law firm re. the 3.3 million dollars. Good luck to him and them.
The issue arises that aaccording to the report, there was an invoice made up for the $3.3Million for Thompson & Associates in respect fo legal fees.
Full stop there. The payment was made ostensibly for legal fees. Then, the JD notes that they were told, that the monies were actually a part payment of a gratuity to Parris.
Note, that the JD also notes that the ‘legal fees’ were authorised by Parris himself.
So, we have a few issues:
1) Was the payment a payment in respect of legal fees or in respect of a gratuity? Which is it?
2) If legal fees, than if it can be proved that the money was then paid to Parris himself, it begs the question as to the validity of the invoice. OR
3) If a gratuity it begs the question (1) why was the invocie made out in respect fo legal fees and (2) was it good governance for Parris to be authorising a payment in respect of his own gratuity?
That is specificlly in respect of the $3.3Million.
A lot of questions. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but merely pointing out questions that the stated case raises.
The report contents fairly FLAME the PISS-POOR corporate governance at CLICO.
Imagine, the Chairman announces to the Board of Directors that he had decided to pruchase a Lear jet for the company to the tune of $9Million.
Did the Articles of Incorporation vest that much authority in him?
Surely, even if they did, such a purchase was of a magnitude that it would be expected that the Board would have to pre approve?
PISS POOR governance.
I would say, having now seen the report, that the policholders should consider whether there is any liability of the Directors, as to whether or not they have been negligent in attending to their duties to the Company and its shareholders and policyholders.
Also note that $3.33 million is exactly one third of $10 million which was alluded to in the elusive employment contract of Mr Parris.
Is there there a possiblity of more $3.33million cheques surfacing?
Then the report goes into the historical financial records or lack thereof of CLICO, a point where there was nothing to support the numbers…nada, zilch.
The explanation as to why Deloitte sought the help of Deloitte Canada to perform a forensic audit as required financial documents were not available….is interesting and more than disturbing.
@Watching, the report does reference opne other such cheque I believe, in 2005 or some such date.
“We also reviewed supporting documents for the payments such as cheque copies and vendor histories from the accounting system. These payments were paid by CIL on behalf of CHBL to different associates and related companies of Mr. Parris, such as David Thompson, Thompson & Associates, Branlee Consulting Services Inc., PFS, as well as payments to Antigua Commercial Bank. Some of the documents we reviewed showed that the releases of funds by CIL were made based on directions from Mr. Parris that were acted upon by Executive Management, such as Mr. Thornhill.
AMUSED I MIGHT VERY WELL BE MISREADING TOO BUT THE ABOVE POSTING DOES NOT APPEAR TO CORRESPOND WITH YOUR VIEW AND NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD APPEAR BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO DRAW THE WRONG INFERENCE EVEN THOUGH I AM INCENSED TO READ OF THE RAPE OF THE CIL FUNDS AND MY POLICY DUE TO MATURE THIS MONTH AFTER PAYING CLICO OVER $166. FOR 25 YEARS ALL TO NO AVAIL. I AM PUZZLED BUT MR THOMPSON HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY ALL AND SUNDRY AS BRIGHT AND MR PARRIS HAS BEEN LABELLED A MORON; IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SOCALLED MORON COULD HAVE BEEN FOOLING THE BRIGHT LEGAL ADVISOR ALL OF THESE YEARS AND NOT ACTING ON HIS ETHICAL ADVICE? OR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPOSE MR THOMPSON WAS COMPLICIT IN THESE OUTLANDISH ACTIONS BY MR PARRIS WITH THE SAVINGS/MONIES OF POLICY HOLDERS WITH WHICH HE WAS ENTRUSTED.I AM JUST WUNDERING BUT AGIAN PERHAPS I MISREAD BECAUSE I PREFER NOT BELIEVE THAT MY PRIME MINISTERS NEITHER MR ARTHUR OR MR THOMPSON ARE SHADY CHARACTERS. THAT IS WHY I NEED MORE CLARITY FROM MR ARTHUR ON HIS CHEQUE ALLEGATION INTO HIS ACCOUNT ISSUE.
@ Amused
Let’s face it, heretofore it has been hinted and suggested that the $3.3 million represented legal fees paid to Thompson and Associates. It now transpires that it was no such thing and that Thompson and Associates were simply fulfilling their obligation to their client by receiving monies ON HIS BEHALF and AT HIS INSTRUCTIONS. “
According to whom, and do the invoices submitted in December 2008 exist?
@ balance
You said. . . .”THAT IS WHY I NEED MORE CLARITY FROM MR ARTHUR ON HIS CHEQUE ALLEGATION INTO HIS ACCOUNT ISSUE.”
**************************************************
Now pray tell me just what more clarity do you wish to hear from Mr. Arthur?
He is on record as explaining that he received a cheque made out in HIS name, i.e. “Owen Arthur”, which he duly deposited to his account and then transferred the same amount into the party account since it was a donation to campaign funds for the party. Now what further explanation does anyone one need. Only an addled brain could not understand the explanation! Is your brain addled? The same would apply to anyone else asking the same stupid question.
hEAR! HEAR! BLP EARHEADS another Clico Day has finally arrived. You guys are the masters of PERCEPTION and DECEPTION but like i alwys say truth wins out at the end of the day. THANK YOU AMUSED! wonder how ole muysty onions gonna sleep to tonite hearing the truth about the 3,3million and DT no THIEF like OWEN AFFTA.
@ac | July 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM |
You might need to retract that bald statement re Mr. Arthur. If he has a mind, to when he reads that statement, he could very well have David-BU hand over your IP address and sue you in court. You just might need to be a bit more circumspect with you accusations. Remember that other bloggers have been sued in other jurisdictions for making false and slanderous statements which they could not prove to be true. And, if after four and a half years the DEMS cannot take anyone of the Bees to court and prove the allegations against any of them to be true then what we hear on the blogs and the street is all hearsay and possibly slanderous. So, be careful. Remember if yuh kyar do de time stay away from de crime. 🙂
@de hood
Why AFFTA going sue me fuh yuh ear head first he gott be named AFFTA to be suing me So kah yuh nknow nothing self along like i say you guys need a heavy dose of reality.
@ dehood
Why would a person received a cheque made out to them fr the sole purpose of an organisation and as head of that organisation not deposit it into the organisation account direct but would prefer to put said cheque in their personnal account that is the question needs to be answered to remove suspicion or taint.
@ac,
Actually, if a subject can prove that he or she is clearly identifiable by the context given, there may be a case to answer, where such applies.
But then, I am not a lawyer…. 😉
The JM’s report states at page 12, final paragraph:
“On January 16, 2009, a payment for $3.333mm was made to the law firm Thompson & Associates by CIL. We examined the invoice from Thompson & Associates dated December 30, 2008, which described four different legal matters in detail and the „fees‟ or „retainers‟ for each.”
Understanding basic English seems to be an intellectual challenge for some commenters. The statement is clear in its intent. The payment was misrepresented as legal fees when in fact it was a payment to Parris…. a payment authorized by Parris himself. From the JM’s statement, there appears to be clear collusion by the parties involved to disguise the true purpose of the payment.
Perhaps Amused needs to reread the relative section.
THe Subject must also prove through identification that he or she is one of same being reffered to
@ Enuff | July 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM |
“According to whom, and do the invoices submitted in December 2008 exist?”
Amused would have made a most suitable legal advisor to CLICO even if in the capacity of a partner in the law firm Thompson Associates.
Now here is case where a payment of $3.3 million was made to a law firm with the supporting documentation (invoice(s) indicating that it was in respect of legal fees and not a “payment of a contractual gratuity to its “CEO”. The underlying document that gave the Finance Department- headed by Mr. Thornhill- the authorization to cut the cheque (s) was NOT any Written Instruction from HR (or even the CEO) based on any gratuity provisions in a contract of employment or extracts of minutes confirming approval by the Board of Directors.
Let us play along with Amused’s legal spin that the then President and CEO of CLICO Barbados- in collusion with his solicitor (who happens to be the same legal advisor to the company headed by Parris)-did not seek to breach the Anti-Money Laundering legislation by defrauding the company and acting without specific approval from the Board of Directors.
If it can be tested that there is no clear evidence to support a charge under the Anti-Money Laundering legislation then it can be accepted (as Amused seems to suggest) that the payment was for the benefit of Mr. Parris as settlement for his contractual gratuity entitlement then the question of Income Tax must be brought into the picture. The following questions need to be put on the table Not for “Amusement” but as serious accusations of Income Tax Evasion until proven otherwise:
Did CLICO- Mr. Parris’s employer deduct the appropriate income tax (most likely at the marginal or higher rate of 35%) from the gratuity payment even if made (as Amused would advise) to the beneficiary’s solicitor via the solicitor/client account facility)?
If Not, was Mr. Parris advised by his solicitor (Thompson Associates) that the payment in the client’s account was a gross amount and will be subject to income liabilities which must be settled before or on filing his (Mr. Parris) personal income tax return for the tax year in which the gratuity was received?
Is there evidence the amount put in the client’s account as a gratuity payment (as Amused seems to recommend as a preferred method of ‘making money work for you’) was declared to the Inland Revenue? This would ensure that all tax liabilities were met and to confirm the authenticity of the payment as a source of income arising from the performance of duties under a contract of employment or one for services; and thereby reinforcing the paper trail to eliminate any concerns or suspicions that could emanate from the money laundering radar.
@ David:
If BIPA had taken my very early advice and had sued the Directors they would be sitting in a much more technically sound legal bench than to stupidly wait on government to reimburse them for investment failures. The government out of sheer party electoral necessity would always make promises that are totally unrealistic and indeed illegal as first presented. For the policyholders to expect any reimbursement before 2014 is like how Barbadians expected the restart of the Four Seasons project before September 2009 and 2010 and 2011 and now 2012.
@ ac
Got any friends in the legal field? If you do, check it out with them and verify whether “Crusoe” and “my nothing self” are not correct. For your own benefit, of course. My philosophy is very simple i.e. . . . if one cannot say something pleasant about someone then why say anything at all. Also, I find that Bajans too believe in ah lot ah gossiping and back stabbing. Ah lie?
“Now what further explanation does anyone one need. Only an addled brain could not understand the explanation! Is your brain addled? The same would apply to anyone else asking the same stupid qestion”
my apologies, sir. my brain must not only be addled but senile since i have never heard that explanation befor. now if you say bthat that is what mr arthur say, i thank you.
“Why would a person received a cheque made out to them fr the sole purpose of an organisation and as head of that organisation not deposit it into the organisation account direct but would prefer to put said cheque in their personnal account that is the question needs to be answered to remove suspicion or taint”
but ac did you not hear de hood say that mr arthur paid the proceeds of the cheque into party coffers. if the cheque was made out to him, would he not have to cash it first? my interest was to determine if it was paid over to the party.
whay say ye amused to my comments at 6.16pm.?
If it is interpreted that there was alleged wrong doing with the knowledge of David Thompson though his firm misstating the details of the invoice for $3.3 he has been dealt with. Young with a working brain to his last day and taken from his wife and young kids.
That along with everything about Clico has been his punishment.
Now, time for the Government to Deal with Parris as he seems to be a government unto himself. The whole matter stinks of “you watch my back & I will watch yours” from BOTH parties.
@ Capone
Both your name sake and The Godfather…..are under infamous competition on this one…..unequal too….lol
When we say Minister Mottley was the best Culture Minister what is the measure being used? What specific accomplishments can be cited?
@ David
Strange you have not sought to take this up in Hamilton Hills’s War of Words (his own)…why David during Mia’s tenure…we had the largest crowds on records at events…the best musical band @ Stadium, the most indigenous costume bands participation…..then AFTERWARDS was the synergy…..surely you must remember the 37,000 at the East coast ? The grounds had to close thereafter.
@Onions
Just checking to establish your measuremen for best.
@David & Onions
Wuh ‘appen? All yuh changing the subject of de thread from forensics to culture? 🙂
Ask David….like he is afraid Hamilton Hill’s lunacy is contagious..lol
@balance i have discuss the cheque matter with you before but for all intended purposes except yourself you think to believe that the public if flooish and unaware of when some one is using covert tactics to acomplish their desired goal..mr arthur had absolutely no excuse for depositing the cheque into his personnal account as leader of the BLP one would think that he must have access of using the accounts of the BLP for such a purpose.the thing stinks to high hell.
@hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come after me go ahead but bet be sure that you got no dirty laundry to hang out
@de hood
Thanks to your eagle eye please note the comments should have been under the Mama Mia blog.
@ millertheanunnaki | July 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM |
This is an excellent assessment on this CLICO fiasco. I read it three times.
I may be wrong but I am of the view that the dead king was the real mastermind behind this company wheeling and dealing. Leroy Parris is not so clever to do all the bobbing and weaving that went on in this company. The decision to buy/lease the jet had to be from DT, he flew on that plane from the time it was purchased. The idea to run the $3.333 million through Thompson Associates could never be an idea from LP. Between these two, they raped this company. Remember too, this is all the while that LP was paid $80,000 per month base pay.
If the BLP wins the next election and does not prosecute LP and his enablers, I will have to rethink my support for them. This is too serious to be swept under the carpet and my tax dollars have no right to be used to repay the poor policyholders while LP is still holding his millions, living high on the hog and the dead king left all of his loot to his family. What about the policyholders families who are suffering as a result of their thieving actions?
Caswell said a few weeks ago that he was informed that the dead king left 34 million dollars.
What is the latest on the late Prime Minister’s will?
How will the CLICO matter affect Mara’s campaign.
Can she reasonably expect to remain above the fray come general election time?
David,
Ask Caswell, he was the one who broke the news.
Not to forget …the millions in St. Lu Lu…
@ac | July 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM |
@hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come after me go ahead but bet be sure that you got no dirty laundry to hang out
****************************************************
But,ac, wuh I gine come affa yuh wid lawyer fuh? Only one reason I wud need tuh come affa yuh and fuh shure ah ain’t gine need nuh lawyer fuh dah. Ah lie? 🙂 Yuh likes yuh is tekkin yuhself real serious doe.
@ac ”@ac | July 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM | @hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want ”
——
Ah, I just had an epiphany. Never mind ac, I like you as a person and as a blogger so your secret identity is safe with me (apart from that I am just too much a gentleman to divulge a lady’s secret). 😉
David im a new at this but do you know who was the Manager at Thompson & Associates in December 2008? If you do will you state that persons name? If you dont will you check it out and publish it?
@ac | July 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM. My comments are apolitical. Not intended to benefit any political party, simply because I have no confidence, for the most part, in Barbados politicians. Of either party. So calm down a little.
That said, and despite all invitations to comment on fatally flawed and politically expedient conclusions by some here – which I can’t be bothered to do as they are already seen for what they are, there is no DLP smoking gun. There isn’t even a peashooter. And no amount of ducking and weaving and political wishful thinking is going to change that.
I merely express the hope that when the FBI report discussed in the House by the PM and O$A is released, that too will be found to be as exculpatory as the CLICO report. You know what they say. “Hope springs eternal”.
..mr arthur had absolutely no excuse for depositing the cheque into his personnal account as leader of the BLP one would think that he must have access of using the accounts of the BLP for such a purpose.the thing stinks to high hell.”
perhaps your speculation might be true or might not be true but i ask if a cheque is written to you would you not have to cash the cheque by depositing it in your bank account or drawing tne funds. ac there is a central bank procedure that sources of income in excess of ten thousand dollars have to be declared as well. the cheque was not wriiten to the party so they would not be able to account for the sources of funds. the question would be if the bank where the cheque was deposited requested mr arthur to follow the procedure. now there i have given you another pathway to pursue your vendetta and by extension the bank against mr arthur.
@Amused
I want to ask you a question and hope u can answer or research it and cite decided case(s).
It is in reference to what caswell stated on another blog concerning the AX issue. He has stated that the Principals are not appointed to a school, but to the Ministry of Education. Suppose that he is right and that they should be appointed to the Ministry and assigned to a school and a mistake was made and atlest seven years after it has not been corrected, has Mr. Boorme got a legitimate exspecation to remain appointed or could it be amended subsequently by being published in the Official Gazette.
Why then Father Gatherer appointed could not be subsequently published in the official Gazette to legitimize his retirement age. I am sure u know of this case that is why i am brief.
“The decision to buy/lease the jet had to be from DT, he flew on that plane from the time it was purchased.”
FLAWED REASONING.
@Amused
Calm down for what ! calm down for what ! as a matter of fact i am ecstatic. it is good to know of your apolitical leanings whether they be beneficial to one party or not all that matters is setting the record straight.
@balannce .
i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.
Mara Thompson was Office Manager up 2007. If anyone can shed light who took over the job please feel free to do so.
i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.”
ypu mean although i offered you an olive branch you still accuse me of misleading. if you prefe tocontinue to be speculative even in the face of informed comment then it is not worth the while to engage you. no where can the adjective folish be ascribed to you but i am loathe to quote that’ salt and sand and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding’
@David
Thanks for the info.
@Amused – No smoking gun not even a peashooter
You sound like a lawyer. Do you guys normally submit false invoices on behalf of your clients?
@To the point | July 8, 2012 at 6:54 AM. I cannot comment on that. I have read the reports of the Waterman Commission in Barbados Today. I see that the very questions you ask me to comment on has been raised before the Commission. I have no intention of second-guessing Mr Waterman or the counsel appearing before the Commission which, with respect, are the best of the best. So, I recommend to you the (for Barbados) excellent reports being carried in Barbados Today.
@patenham. On what basis do you conclude that the invoices were false? I see no evidence to point anyone to that conclusion and I state that wishful thinking is not evidence.
@ac. Chile, seeing that some commenters are living in Neverland, do NOT calm down. You are right to be elated and excited – you are right. Enjoy!
@Amused
It is my understanding invoices that total $3.33m was submitted by Thompson And Associates for legal services rendered Clico.
It is also my understanding that the $3.33m paid by Clico to Thompson and Associates based on the invoices for legal services was actually part gratuity payment for Leroy Parris.
Now i am a simple man. What was the cheque for.
Was it for legal services Or was it for Gratuity.
Is there a possibility they were two cheques @ $3.33m each or is it that Clico still owes Thompson and Associates $3.33m for the legal fees.
@ patenham | July 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM |
Don’t expect a response. This is too straightforward a question for a simple response from the joker in the amusing CLICO pack.
@balance
whatis your problem ! the olive branch however well it might been intended was your way of saying “see mr osa was not so bad afterall he was followingbank procedure which at this point was never confirmed by OSA ! what olive branch . any way thanks but no thanks.and what informed comment based on “IF”
@patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.
As I have said, THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN and no amount of political wishful thinking is going to generate one.
@ac. As someone who is traditionally BLP, I will now fully support you in BLP-bashing these idiots who refuse to see that there is no smoking gun implicating the DLP or David Thompson in any ethical or legal wrongdoing. Bash away. They have asked for it.
Amused,
If you want to put reason aside and join AC in being delusional, feel free, but the only one you are convincing with that specious argument is yourself…and AC of course.
I am disappointed in you.
@ac. I leave it to you to respond to Inkwell on the subject of our “specious” argument. I note that the usual major political spinners on BU are keeping well away from this one, small wonder, and I believe you are I are enititled to draw our own inferences from that, even though we are, to all intents and purposes, on opposite sides. So, if you wish to move in for the kill on the subject of misappropriated cheques (not made out to the person paying them into their account) all I can say is, be my guest. It is high time some people put Barbados first and politics second.
Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |
@patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.
***************************************
you should be a lawyer. that was very creative. i would love you to give that same creative reasoning to some of the policyholders who can’t get back their money.
let me know how that works out for you and them.
what rubbish.
The company was raped – Lear Jets and million dollar legal fees (sorry “gratuities”). The auditors were negligent. The actuaries incompetent or non-existent. Assets were not matched to liabilities. Exorbitant, unapproved executive remuneration was the norm. Accounting policies were ignored. The statutory fund was not maintained. The company mispriced and mis-sold its policies. The objections of the Supervisor of Insurance were ignored. Counsel was compliant with its snout in the same trough as the directors. The EFPA’s were nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
The connection between this company and the DLP is public knowledge.
Exactly how much of a smoking gun does Amused need?
@Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |
“If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.”
One notices how you eschew the issue of income tax liability on the gratuity payment. Since you are being ‘hypothetical here ( and quite rightly seeing that you were adamant in the past that the $3.33 million was in respect of a gratuity payment to Parris as alluded to in the forensic audit report) why not let us continue down this path and assume that no income tax was deducted at source i.e. by the CLICO Accounting Officer(s).
If this is the case what would be the responsibility or duty of the Solicitors “Thompson and Associates” to their client LP that the gratuity payment credited to the solicitor/client account is subject to Income Tax thereby ensuring that the account under the solicitor’s fiduciary control is not compromised and running afoul of the Revenue Laws of Barbados?
We should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in Law to explore this angle of the debate as you would wont to do in other aspects of the said Law.
@Miller. No expertise in law is required here, merely a modicum of common sense, which I urge you to adopt.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NO TAX WAS PAID ON THIS SUM????? How do you know whether or not Parris or Thompson or both did not pay tax on this amount? It was not within the scope of the investigation to ascertain this and if the tax people wish to question or investigate it, that is for them. Why are you asking me these extremely silly questions the answers to which would be very apparent to anyone with even a modicum of business experience? Do you really not know the answers? Or is this some sort of political fishing trip where, as we all know, perception, rather than TRUTH, is the desired outcome? And if it is a fishing trip, I fear that the perception is not what you are wanting and trying to achieve.
Now, enough of this. If you have questions on the taxation on this amount or concerns, take it up with the tax authorities and/or lodge a formal complaint with the DPP. There is no evidence to suggest that tax was not paid and, if it was not, I am quite sure the tax authorities will deal with this issue and if you feel the need, you can write them and share your views with them.
But, since we are on the subject of tax and you appear to be such an authority on tax, we should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in tax to explore this angle of the debate in relation to the cheque for $75,000 that ended up in an account other than that for which it was designated.
Very Amusing….
@ Amused | July 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM |
You have reacted just as expected when trapped in an intellectual corner! Resort to the use of the ad hominem technique and draw red herrings across the debating trail.
You have indeed shown your true colours which we suspected all along but couldn’t attach a partisan tag which you vehemently denied continuously until now.
One fails to see the relationship between the ‘suspect’ gratuity (subjected to the microscope of a forensic audit) paid to LP from the contributions of defrauded CLICO policyholders and some $75,000.00 picked from nowhere. Who was the paymaster and final recipient or beneficiary of this amount of $75,000.00 or was it $750,000.00?
Good luck, Mi Laud! The Bajan electorate especially the CLICO policyholders would soon be having their say and final verdict as to who receive what and how much. Not Court jesters and spin doctors. You are truly an honour to your calling.
“And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
I am sure you are familiar with the above quote from a philosopher you grudgingly admire but whose teachings you refuse to acknowledge or respect.
So tell me BLP yardfowls what is so unethical about thompson and associates being paid for services rended or even attorney client privilegeThen what do you yardflows suggest that the lawfirm do return the cheque .you guys/keep harping about a about a legtimate business deal between a client and his lawyer and looking like the dog trying tocatch its tail .
Since the BLP yardflows can,t win on the ethics and legitimacy here come the”voice of thunder” miller pounding his chest while pontificating and barelling down the avenue of “tax evasion which not even the NATION has accused the any of the parties involved. to you miller i asked”are we there yet” mr ac had told me that the BLP yardfowls would look like fools debating this issue and noticed that OSA and MIA had ittle to say about the cheque which the yardfowls keep pecking on. CLUCK! CLUCK!
@ ac | July 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM |
“you guys/keep harping about a about a legitimate business deal between a client and his lawyer ”
As said to Amused the electorate and the suffering CLICO policyholders will have the final judgment on this matter.
The client’s case has already been eloquently pleaded in the highest court of the land: LP is an estimable gentleman who has been exceedingly instrumental in making CLICO a very well managed and profitable business conglomerate worthy of praise and highly recommended to the ordinary people as a vehicle for investing funds. He is not a leper and is deserving of our adulation and support not vile condemnation as if he is a leper to be avoided.
Now the jury is out and a verdict will soon be delivered.
@Amused
My friend you have said a lot but it does not make sense. Do you really believe the nonsense you have you have written. Do you think only pure blind supporters of the DLP read the blogs. On this issue you remind me of the house jester in our parliament.
Until the $3.3.million is satisfactorily explained, it must be labelled a suspicious transaction. It is instructive the recent comment by outgoing Central Bank of Trinidad
looka life miller.
Only tonight I repeated thatexact same phrase to a colleague “LP is an estimable gentleman ….”
The BLP only need to replay that over and over again this election cycle. 25,000 people are not to be take lightly anywhere, in any circumstance, in any condition.
Pingback: Owen Arthur Drops CLICO Bomb at West Terrace | Barbados Underground
the 3.3 million went back to the CEO from the lawyer. its time that policy holders file a class action suit against the directors CEO president vice president, L D, all of the politicians and lawyers knew what was going on with that company and withdrew all of their monies, the regulators F.S.C, supervisor of insurance, the government and the auditors are liable. the minister of finance allowed it to file fraudulent annual reports on its operations in Trinidad and not Barbados, the insurance industry needs cleaning up in that they should submit quarterly reports along with a recent bank statement for the corresponding period. The Financial Service Commission have to take some blame too for letting it withdrawn funds from its statutory liability fund that is require under the law to purchase land in Miami without its approval or that of the central bank
Pingback: CLICO: Is and Therefore | Barbados Underground
Why Thu users can pay to you directly, so you remember each customer next time frauen nackt they come
back to your room. Try to take quick notes after each chat, so you are
likely to make more money by talking, not typing.
Pingback: Leroy Parris and the $3.333 Million Payment | Barbados Underground
Pingback: Time to Come Clean Mara Thompson | Barbados Underground
If you’re middle-aged and female, receiving a food massage might relieve symptoms of stress and
fatigue, and improve your circulation.
Pingback: Mara Thompson’s Porous Legacy | Barbados Underground