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.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.