Leroy Parris and the $3.333 Million Payment
Former Prime Minister David Thompson (l) Former Chairman CLICO Holdings B’dos Ltd rumoured to be local partners in Cost-U-Less
The news that the Deloitte Judicial Manager has taken action to recover $3.3. million dollars paid to Leroy Parris via Thompson & Associates has flushed out Laroy Parris and his credentialed lawyers Hal Gollop QC and Vernon Smith QC. BU will not be side-tracked by the theatre that will be orchestrated around this matter about how $3.3 millions dollars found its way into the deep pocket of former Executive Chairman of CLICO Leroy Parris. What some of us want to know is if there is consensus the invoice generated to support the $3.3. million payment is legitimate and whether taxes and relevant laws have been honoured. Does Parris and his lawyers dispute the findings of Deloitte Judicial Forensic Report on the matter?
To pursue a clinical approach to discovering truth and justice in the matter of CLICO and the $3.3. million dollar payment we highlight Walter Blackman’s intervention posted on another blog Speaker Michael Carrington and Deputy Speaker Mara Thompson Drag the Highest Court in the Land Into the Gutter.
It is extremely important for all of us to understand that we are witnessing some of the features and results of a system with a foundation that was designed in the early 1980’s. Back then, a handful of civil servants and politicians saw the enormous sweets to be reaped from having poor control mechanisms in place to account for taxpayers’ money. Any millions that could be grabbed from private sector operations were also considered fair game.
A special feature of a life insurance company operating in Barbados is that the safety of policyowners’ premiums is supposed to be protected by built-in safeguards in the form of : actuaries, auditors, accountants and high-quality company management, regulators, statutory reserves, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister.
Note that, under this approach, the buck stops with the Prime Minister. Whenever everything else has failed, policyholders would expect him to do all within his political power to protect and safeguard their interests.
This suit by the JM shows that rather than the buck stopping with the PM, the assault started with him. Armed also with the power of being the PM, the Minister of Finance joined the assault and betrayed the public trust by engaging in money laundering, and other forms of criminal and fraudulent behaviour. Statutory reserves were disregarded; regulators were handpicked, “trained”, and used; CLICO intentionally never had any quality management, and its accountant seemed anxious and willing to sign away millions of policyholders’ cash at the slightest of Mr. Parris’ urgings.
Sensible Barbadians should now be asking: Was David Thompson the only PM and /or Minister of Finance who accelerated the demise of CLICO? Or did he choose to walk a path that had already been mapped out by others before him? Did his criminal, unethical, and morally unsavoury character have any influence on the type of persons he handpicked as candidates, ministers, and successors?
Barbados Underground 
@ Money Brain,
That was a refreshing documentary style programme. It was interesting throughout. I certainly learnt from it.
We live in a corrupt world, controlled by the few. Sadly, too many of our countrymen/women accept, meekly, what they are told or given. I fail to understand why Bajans are so lethargic and why they lack the energy to take on their terribly flawed government.
Alas, Bush Tea’s post seems to be where all the action is. He appears to have flushed out our resident doctor, the irascible and unique; king of the capital letters – GP.
LikeLike
Parris once told a partner in an Accounting Firm here in Barbados who used to perform the CLICO audit “the problem with you is that you are too honest”
many years ago in T&T a number of prominent Company s i.e. WITCO moved their pension plans from CLICO placing them elsewhere& the Accounting Firm Ernst & Young stopped being Clico’s Auditors giving up millions of dollars in fees
LikeLike
@David
“To pursue a clinical approach to discovering truth and justice in the matter of CLICO and the $3.3. million dollar payment we…..”
David,
It might be worthwhile for me to make a few comments on the built-in safeguards that I mentioned before:
1. Actuary
The actuary designs and prices insurance policies and annuities. He also calculates the statutory reserves that are usually reported to regulators on an annual basis. I will come back to the statutory reserves later. For now, I am focusing on the designing and pricing of CLICO products. CLICO Barbados most likely purchased its actuarial services from CLICO Trinidad.
As the extent of the CLICO collapse became more apparent, Barbadians discovered, after the fact, that the company had been marketing “high-risk and troublesome” products.
Who designed and priced those products?
Could it be that someone at CLICO, with little or no actuarial input or oversight, was simply able to:
• dream up an annuity
• sweeten it with a “promised” high rate of return
• price it to generate millions of dollars in the short term
• get it approved by the regulators
• and unleash it upon a trusting public
knowing full well that no money would be around when the time comes for CLICO to pay those who invested in the product?
One cannot help but notice a sense of indignation on the part of the regulators with respect to these ‘risky’ CLICO products. Too bad it only surfaced after the victims had already been ensnared and their money grabbed.
How come these products were able to get past the regulators so easily?
What other risky financial products, already approved by the regulators, are now destined to turn Barbadians into more victims?
LikeLike
@ Tudor
The depressing reality is that honesty largely means nothing. The only real difference between Parris and John Doe is the level of opportunity.
Too many, given the same opportunities would have done EXACTLY as he did.
THAT is the real problem that we face…
When an ordinary workman have no qualms about stealing time; an ordinary salesman is willing to cheat on price; a neighbor is willing to ‘take up’ stuff …it is only obvious that when some of us reach high levels and rich opportunities that they will gorge themselves.
Our political leaders and senior public servants largely fall into these traps too.
The challenge is to build a society where values like honesty, justice, selflessness and patience are more important than wealth and power.
Have you heard of ANY initiatives to achieve such…?
LikeLike
@AWTY
Yuh understand why the Bank returned Parris’ money?
++++
I can only speculate but I saw this article yesterday re RBC pulling their Wealth management units out of the Caribbean and Latin America. If RBC is under scrutiny because of money laundering concerns you can bet the others are too, when in doubt they may fire you as their customer.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-laundering-fears-fuel-an-rbc-retreat-1422924488
LikeLike
“However, In the case of the $3.333M, the auditor’s duty is to inform the client of any concerns they may have………..he does not have the authority to conduct further investigations unless he is requested to do so by the client”.
Maybe he can’t investigate further but don’t anti-money laundering rules say a professional adviser has to report suspected money laundering activity regardless? Maybe that hasn’t got onto the Statute book in Barbados yet.
LikeLike
Many Bajan lawyers aided and abetted in the laundering of CLICO funds and the audit firm was complicit thru negligence.
LikeLike
Leroy Parris is guilty of money launder and also had policemen on his personal payroll. If he and his corrupt friends go scotch free then the people who are sent to jail should take Glendairy to Dodds.
LikeLike
Walter Blackman, it was apparent for a long time that Parris and Duprey used CLICO to launder money aided by lawyers in Barbados. Yearwood, Stuart and Haynes are just some of the lawyers who are criminally liable for facilitating laundering.
LikeLike
@Walter
The recall is that the troublesome annuities were also sold in Trinidad. Many have already concluded the Supervisor of Insurance Office in Barbados was under-resourced in every way. One wonders the other Insurance companies struggling even with the FSC in position.
LikeLike
@Are-we-there-yet
The Nation article you posted reveals that Parris had an exorbitant remuneration package that was in no way related to the profitability of the company or in line with packages paid to CEOs in the insurance and other industries.
LikeLike
The President of the Barbados Investors and Policyholders Alliance (BIPA), June Fowler, today refused to be drawn into robust public discussion which emanated from yesterday’s unsolicited public apology issued by Leroy Parris, while noting that the former executive chairman of CLICO International Life (CIL) was a defendant in one of two cases BIPA had filed in the High Court.
http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2015/02/04/really-leroy/
LikeLike
@ are-we-there-yet February 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM #
Thanks for the information, AWTY.
“The former executive chairman has also taken legal action against CLICO International Life Insurance, claiming over $3.5 million for three personal policies which matured between November 2008 and December last year.”
And June Fowler, the president of BIPA, [the organization that is fighting on behalf of thousands of CLICO policy holders who cannot receive their insurance benefits] was called a “bald pooch cat” by Chris Sinckler.
AWTY, it seems as though CLICO was engaging in various policies that did not conform to normal business practices were being undertaken at CLICO.
For example, the anomaly in this situation is that Leroy Parris was being paid through his company, Professional Financial Services Inc., as Executive Chairman and CEO of CLICO Holdings (Barbados). Theoretically, this meant that CLICO hired the services of PFS perform Executive Chairman and CEO services.
Under ordinary circumstances, when company A solicits the services of company B, payments made by company A to B becomes an expense, while payments received by company B has to be categorized as income. Therefore, if normal business practices were followed, ALL the earnings made by Parris would have to be classified as “services income” and would have been subject to VAT, for which he would have to file the relevant VAT returns.
This brings me to the “employment contract”. How can CLICO “hire” PFS (a company) and pay its owner as though he is an ordinary employee, promising him gratuity and other grandeur remuneration packages? Technically, Leroy Parris was NOT employed by CLICO, he performed services, through PFS, for the insurance company. Therefore, in my opinion, the auditors and the Oversight Committee would have been hard press to find a legal or valid employment contract.
LikeLike
@ are-we-there-yet February 4, 2015 at 8:09 PM #
But, there is also another technicality that makes out Leroy Parris to be smarter than we think. Professional Financial Services Inc. is registered as a corporation and not a sole proprietorship. As a corporation, PFS is legally a corporate entity, separate and distinct from its owner.
As such, one of the significant benefits of registering a business under this classification, is that the personal assets of the owner are safeguarded against the company’s liabilities, such as claims made by creditors or lawsuits.
If Parris was receiving income from CLICO, through PFS to perform services on their behalf, some difficulties may arise when trying to sue him, since PFS would have to be sued instead. Unfortunately, if his company does not have any funds or assets that can be levied upon, then tough luck.
LikeLike
@ Artaxerxes February 5, 2015 at 10:15 AM
“Parris was receiving income from CLICO, through PFS to perform services on their behalf, some difficulties may arise when trying to sue him, since PFS would have to be sued instead. Unfortunately, if his company does not have any funds or assets that can be levied upon, then tough luck..”
Now here is where things get a bit technically convoluted and supports my position that the way to get back at smartass Leroy is to remove the veil of corporate leprosy and carry out a comprehensive tax audit into the affairs of Leroy Parris and all the corporate entities (not CLICO) in which he is affiliated either in the capacity of a shareholder or director.
Did the companies in which Leroy Parris has or had a “beneficial interest” file the relevant corporate and corporation tax returns declaring the “management and consultancy” fees received from the CLICO group of companies?
How did Leroy get his remuneration from PFS or Branlee Consulting? In the capacity of a employee (managing director) or by way of dividends as a shareholder?
Were the relevant income taxes deducted from the payments to Parris?
Is he registered as self-employed for income tax and NIS purposes.
How was he able to finance his highfalutin lifestyle if he was not an employee of any of the CLICO companies (contract of services)?
Now here is where his friends in high places will be circling the wagon as both the Minister of Finance and Parris’s chief protector Lord Fumble would put a spoke in the wheel of any move by the Barbados Revenue Authority (much touted as the country’s fiscal saviour) to conduct a tax audit into Mr. Parris’s tax affairs and those of his related corporate entities.
We wonder what the now dumbstruck Sir Frank Alleyne has to say about the blatant acts of tax evasion after confirming that he knows of many top dogs in the society who fail to make their fair contribution to tax pool to help pay for the vast goods and services (public goods) provided by the State.
LikeLike
uh know ac here sitting on thr back patio enjoying a cup of coffee reading and digesting all these Clico.if memory serves me. correct. i remembe caught in the exact sceanario looks like deja vue all over again with the same outcome
in counting the number of articles on Bu about Clico on the past seven years a tally of close to one hundred and the same out pouring and the same result
LikeLike
@ millertheanunnaki February 5, 2015 at 10:45 AM #
“Now here is where things get a bit technically convoluted and supports my position that the way to get back at smartass Leroy is to remove the veil of corporate leprosy and carry out a comprehensive tax audit into the affairs of Leroy Parris and all the corporate entities (not CLICO) in which he is affiliated either in the capacity of a shareholder or director.
Did the companies in which Leroy Parris has or had a “beneficial interest” file the relevant corporate and corporation tax returns declaring the “management and consultancy” fees received from the CLICO group of companies?
How did Leroy get his remuneration from PFS or Branlee Consulting? In the capacity of a employee (managing director) or by way of dividends as a shareholder?
Were the relevant income taxes deducted from the payments to Parris? Is he registered as self-employed for income tax and NIS purposes. How was he able to finance his highfalutin lifestyle if he was not an employee of any of the CLICO companies (contract of services)?”
I remember when the DLP first came to office in 2008, their buzz word was “mess”. Miller, you are now coming to terms with the “mess” that was parading as CLICO.
My contention is, if CLICO was paying Parris, through PFS, to perform various services on their behalf, he cannot be considered as an employee. It’s just a simple matter of CLICO paying PFS to perform services of its behalf. Therefore, any remuneration received by Parris should not be treated as salary, but as INCOME, and as such, subject to VAT. He would also be required to file corporation tax returns and if he received a salary from PFS, then he would have to file personal income tax returns.
The circumstances under which Parris was paid and the other grandeur benefits he received are definitely enigmatic.
LikeLike
@Artaxerxes, millertheanunnaki and Are-we-there-yet, kudos to all of you for the excellent details provided on this CLICO matter.
You have identified a clear path to possible criminal liability re Parris but as you know it is in the civil court that the policyholders need true victory.
Your points have also highlighted possible grounds of directorial and management malfeasance and I expect that the legal team for BIPA are pursuing these avenues and any others that are beneficial.
But you guys (gals) have been excellent with your distillation on the corporate tap dancing these folks were conducting.
I would also welcome your detailed views on how the Directors were bamboozled or if they were.
Pieces spoke of Dr. Springer parading weekly on management and change processes and yet was a member of that Board.
I would like to hear how you guys clarify what may have transpired to allow this ‘fraud’ to take place under the noses of very sharp and supposedly practical, honest business executives.
Kudos.
LikeLike
Artaxerxes;
Thanks for your response. It confirms my feeling that Parris’ high powered lawyers and friends would have ensured that he has a safety net for practically all eventualities.
However I think that he and the late DT might have miscalculated when they reportedly engaged in the highly gymnastic process of relieving CIL of $3.333 million dollars which found its way into Parris’ company. I also think that Parris and DT clearly mistakenly believed that Parris was entitled to this money and that the process they used would not be subjected to serious scrutiny because, between them they controlled any entity that might think differently.
Several factors point to the mistakes that were made. eg.;
1) A clear paper trail exists between that transfer and the involvement of Parris, DT and CIL. That paper trail has been clearly delineated in the JM’s leaked 1st Forensic Report as well as the reports in the traditional media of the facts involved in the JM’s recent high court suit.
2) The action taken by Parris’ bank to return millions of dollars to him with the clear implication being that they considered such funds were tainted by a process of money laundering. This is strengthened by reliable reports that no other commercial bank would touch these monies, but that they eventually found a home in the Barbados Workers Union Cooperative Credit Union.
3) We do not know what is contained in the unleaked subsequent reports of the JM but it is not unreasonable to assume that nothing could have been contained in them that were contrary to the findings in the leaked one, since the JMs are now bringing a case against Parris and DT’s estate and others that appears to be based on information in the first leaked report. If the later reports had invalidated the first the new Case could not have been brought.
4) The JM’s suit, that apparently restricts itself to the $3.333 million, suggests that they recognize that this one is fairly easy to collect, since it involves money laundering and a clear paper trail while other funds that might have been diverted from CIL and CLICO might be more difficult to pin down.
These all point to a significant probability that laundering of funds involved in that transfer is eminently provable.
If this is so then, with signatures of the principal defendants on the cheques, would it be so difficult to link them with the “laundered” monies involved?
There is however the question as to whether or not the authorities that would be involved in the proceedings to identify and fight for the return of funds that were identifiably removed from CLICO, would actually follow their sworn remits and do their jobs without fear or favour.
We all know of the brouhaha surrounding the appointment of the preeminent legal luminary for Barbados.
We all know of the fact that Mr. Parris is not a leper.
We all know of big rides and who had them and sold them and to whom.
In most First World and even Caribbean jurisdictions such a case would be a slam dunk. In the Barbados of 2015 it is not so clear if it would or would not be.
LikeLike
DeeWord;
It is difficult to answer your question in your 11:31 am post except to say that several posters, led by Bushtea, have already provided the answer. Read his postings on many topics and the answer is there. We are all educated Brassbowls.
I suspect that the Board of Directors were never given any papers or documentation on the company outside of the normal audited reports which afaik would have all painted the company as being well run. Various ploys could have been used to ensure that Board Members were kept far from actually seeing details of the Company’s operations.
I also suspect that, if the company had an internal audit department, it would have been handpicked to ensure that the procedures and staff, would have been incapable of identifying and tracking the infelicities which eventually resulted in the demise of the company.
I also suspect that the Company also paid extremely high salaries and perks to strategic staff members to ensure that they would do nothing to lose their picks and would wink at any apparent infelicities.
Just my take as someone who is very far from being an expert on finances or corporate management.
LikeLike
@ DeeWord February 5, 2015 at 11:50 AM #
“I would also welcome your detailed views on how the Directors were bamboozled or if they were.”
“We found no reference to this payment in the Minutes of CIL or CHBL at or around the time it was made. However, in July 2009, shortly after the appointment of Dr. Frank Alleyne as the Government’s representative on the Board of CHBL, there was reference to a request from the Oversight Committee for information relating to payments made to Mr. Parris, specifically a copy of Mr. Parris‟ employment contract….” [Page 13, Forensic Audit Report]
“When contacted about the latest developments in the CLICO saga, William Layne retired Permanent Secretary who headed the special Oversight Committee set up by Government, described the disclosures in the writs filed by Parris as “shocking”. “We [Oversight Committee] never got access to any contracts between CLICO Holdings and any of the companies, including CL Financial Limited or Professional Financial Services. “When we asked for contracts we [Oversight Committee] were told there was no evidence of any contracts,”
Layne told the WEEKEND NATION yesterday. “The parent company [CLICO Holdings] indicated in an email they could not find any contract. Maybe now the court would examine the contract(s) and determine what is payable, if any,” Layne added.” [Nationnews.com March 11, 2011]
Perhaps the above excerpts can give you some insight.
It appears as though some transactions were undertaken without knowledge of the Board of Directors.
LikeLike
@ are-we-there-yet February 5, 2015 at 12:54 PM #
I agree with your comments. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that Parris believed he would be protected by the DLP, especially since his buddy was the PM of Barbados. Unfortunately, what they did not anticipate was the untimely death of Thompson. This event “over-turned the apple cart”, since Froon and “the boys and dem” were left in a quandary and have now “circled the wagons” in an effort to help Parris.
Freundel Stuart, Chris Sinckler, Hal Gollop, Leroy Parris……. the real consortium of friends.
LikeLike
@Aratexes ”As such, one of the significant benefits of registering a business under this classification, is that the personal assets of the owner are safeguarded against the company’s liabilities, such as claims made by creditors or lawsuits”
Not necessarily. In certain circumstances, a Court can lift the veil of incorporation. I am not sure if only in criminal matters and not civil, but things have changed in the past few years, whereby ‘seat filling’ directors aka of old, are no longer and directors are personally liable for various matters.
Not least of which, Directors of a company are personally liable for money laundering infelicities. ALL of the directors of a company where such is found to be the case.
😉
LikeLike
A fun read, lots of grey areas….but interesting nevertheless…
http://www.llrx.com/features/veildoctrine.htm
Also..
http://vijayhighcourt.blogspot.com/2008/08/company-law-partnerships.html
LikeLike
@Crusoe February 5, 2015 at 4:42 PM #….are no longer and directors are personally liable for various matters….Not least of which, Directors of a company are personally liable for money laundering infelicities”
That sir is the rub.
Are-we said it as clear as day however “In most First World … jurisdictions such a case would be a slam dunk. In the Barbados of 2015 it is not so clear if it would or would not be.”
Gentlemen all (Artax incl) I do hope that at the end of this process here on BU that there is an intent to bring some closure to reduce the larger than life persona that we afford to the ‘wise old men and women’ of our country.
It is totally unacceptable that Phd holders, financial sages and otherwise intelligent men and women can sit on a Board of Directors in this modern world of money laundering and hide behind “some transactions were undertaken without knowledge of the Board of Directors”.
There are there to safeguard the shareholders and policy holders’ interest although often they think they are there at the comfort of the CEO and chairman. Well, if that’s their play then when something like this blows up they have to be held accountable (I hope there is a suit against them too) and shamed in public.
Dr. Springer in particular has a family heritage that shouts of public good and work at the real grassroots. How in God’s name could he be ALLEGEDLY (no lock up) involved in this chicanery.
You gentlemen have analyzed this as well as any guru analyzed the Madoff case and I hope that you and the BU fam (especially Bushie) will ensure this continues to be a public ruckus: more letters to the editor, nuff Brass-Tacks etc etc. Relentless.
Shame, shame, shame.
LikeLike
Crusoe in your 4:42 pm post you said:
Not least of which, Directors of a company are personally liable for money laundering infelicities. ALL of the directors of a company where such is found to be the case.
😉
The swift action taken to totally disband and dismember DT’s company after the JM’s 1st forensic audit report was leaked is interesting in this regard. But would its principals at the time of the infelicity and their estates be still liable under the “lifting of the veil” process if money laundering were proven?
The JM’s case can be interpreted as having a strong flavour of money laundering. This might indicate that there is a strong possibility that the Honourable House of Assembly could be severely tarnished while the case is being unravelled in Court unless decisive actions are taken by the Government to obviate this, even if the case drags on for several years past the life of this administration.
Oh what a tangled web that, unexpectedly, Providence and lack of money now appears to be untangling.
LikeLike
@ Crusoe February 5, 2015 at 4:42 PM #
“Not necessarily. In certain circumstances, a Court can lift the veil of incorporation. I am not sure if only in criminal matters and not civil, but things have changed in the past few years, whereby ‘seat filling’ directors aka of old, are no longer and directors are personally liable for various matters.”
I addressed this matter in a previous post.
Artaxerxes February 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM #
@CHAUCER February 5, 2015 at 11:51 AM #
“@ Artaxerxes There is a legal rule known as lifting the corporate veil…”
Yes, “lifting or piercing the corporate veil” is a judicial process whereby the protection provided by the separate legal personality on incorporation may be lifted so as to render the directors and members personally liable for the debts of the company. The principle was first established by the English House of Lords in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd case of 1897.
It is used in circumstances where the Court is of the opinion that companies business operations were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of corporate legislation. For example, in circumstances where the company operated in disregard of the corporate form, engages in fraud or fraudulent conduct of business, the court may lift the corporate veil so the owner(s) would be personally liable for any losses suffered by third parties.
Hence, the operations of Professional Financial Services Inc. must satisfy either judicial or statutory provisions before court can impose “lifting the veil”.
LikeLike
Good, we have consensus that there is enough evidence for the BRA to impose an audit on Leroy Parris if it has not started already.
LikeLike
are-we-there-yet February 5, 2015 at 5:50 PM #
Not that this applies to the matter being discussed, the facts may prove or disprove, but in a case of money laundering, it is not an issue of the lifting of the veil, it is another issue pertaining to the relevant laws on anti-money laundering.
It is a matter of fact and the directors of a company that is found to have been involved in money laundering, are liable, full stop, veil irrelevant.
So, two potential cases that could impact directors.
1) Cases where the Courts lift the veil, for one reason or another…seems to be mainly where fraud or sham is suspected and
2) Cases where money laundering is involved, where the matter is dealt with according to the relevant legislation, there is no need to even consider the lifting of the veil.
LikeLike
@ DeeWord February 5, 2015 at 5:47 PM #
“It is totally unacceptable that Phd holders, financial sages and otherwise intelligent men and women can sit on a Board of Directors in this modern world of money laundering and hide behind “some transactions were undertaken without knowledge of the Board of Directors”…..”
DeeWord, you have to face the reality of how business is conducted the various unscrupulous business practices undertaken in Barbados.
I made mentioned of a few experiences I encountered providing accounting services for businesses in this island, and was admonished by many of the BU contributors, with one even mentioning I have an “Uncle Tom” mentality.
Owners of many small and medium sized businesses do like to pay for services rendered, they don’t like filing corporation, income tax or VAT returns, or paying NIS for themselves. Yet they expect them and their family to benefit from free secondary education, school meals, health care, subsidized or free travel on state owned busses, free summer camps, street lighting, police, fire and defense, without making any contribution.
Similar to how politicians appoint friends or political associates as board members of statutory corporations, some owners appoint “brand names” on the board of directors of their companies, in an effort to “look good” and to make sure the business operations are conducted in accordance with the provisions of corporate legislation. Otherwise, they serve no real purpose.
For example, under the previous BLP administration, Henderson Bovell’s tenure as chairman of the National Assistance Board was atrocious, so too was Monique Taitt’s as chairperson of the National Cultural Foundation, under this current DLP administration.
LikeLike
ac have been following this case in the BU Court and into its fourth day based on second hand evedience by star witness Artaxerxes judge David has found enough reason to charge leroy parris with money laundering
next will be the sentencing phase, stay tuned,
LikeLike
Btw John Grisham already own the rights to this novel, just saying.
LikeLike
@ ac February 5, 2015 at 7:26 PM
So what about the miller? Hasn’t he been also levying charges of tax evasion against Parris the tax dodger?
The evidence lies in the confession of Sir ‘Frank’ Alleyne. He knows slimy Leroy only too well.
But according to your rules of justice the same way you want Lisa Marshall of the Transport Board to bring proof she did not steal money so too we should expect Leroy the leper to prove he did not defraud or deprive the Revenue Authority of Barbados.
Fair is fair or six is half of a dozen.
What do you say ac the dc (damn charlatan)?
LikeLike
@ ac
What is your view on this then, ac?
Do you think it is right that David Thompson’s firm should have billed Clico for $3.33million for itemized services when it turns out that the amount billed is actually for Leroy Parris’s “bonus”. Do you think it is right that they should have deducted $500,000 and sent the rest on to Parris?
Would you like to comment on why anyone would do that?
LikeLike
@ St George’s Dragon February 5, 2015 at 8:11 PM #
“What is your view on this then, ac? Do you think it is right that David Thompson’s firm should have billed Clico for $3.33million for itemized services when it turns out that the amount billed is actually for Leroy Parris’s “bonus”. Do you think it is right that they should have deducted $500,000 and sent the rest on to Parris? Would you like to comment on why anyone would do that?”
So far, many of us who have contributed on this topic have done so based on the evidence as revealed by the forensic audit, business and company law, and articles pertaining to the issue. We have not danced around this matter nor have we made speculative or generalized incoherent statements mentioning “facts” and “truth”.
The TRUTH has been revealed by the forensic audit, and the FACT remains that various payments were made to “to different associates and related companies of Mr. Parris.”
“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. (See page 13 of the forensic audit report)
The substantiating evidence in this CLICO affair is “overwhelming”, and the contributions are intelligent, intellectually stimulating and informative, unlike the gibberish members of the consortium post. Therefore, it is blatantly clear that, on this issue, the political shiite buckets that parade on BU as AC, are out of their league.
They prefer, in true DLP style (ask Lisa Marshall), to visit the other posts to “throw licks” in Jeff Broomes and Adrian Loveridge.
The consortium wants us to divert from the topic and focus on them, because they actually think BU is about them. Let us remain focused on the issue and continue the “discourse” intelligently as we have done so far.
LikeLike
@Artax
There will be no diversion. The Clico Affair will dogg Leroy Parris and his family as long as he remains on this earth.
On Thursday, 5 February 2015, Barbados Underground wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Artexeres
Far be it for ac to twist ! change or distort any evedience presented in the BU courtroom..so far ac have sat silently in the court room gallery just pondering and watching pages after pages exhibited with only one side told and has been allowed by judge David, as for ac not even a murmuring of the heart can be heard, carry on smartly who am i to judge,
LikeLike
@ ac February 5, 2015 at 8:58 PM
“as for ac not even a murmuring of the heart can be heard, carry on smartly who am i to judge..”
Carry on ‘rabbiting’. Ms Lisa Marshall is the forewoman of the Jury in this case.
She will not forget you and your guiding principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
LikeLike
millertheanunnaki February 5, 2015 at 9:10 PM #
Carry on ‘rabbiting’. Ms Lisa Marshall is the forewoman of the Jury in this case.
She will not forget you and your guiding principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
in that case ac throws “self” on the mercy ‘s of the court,
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
LikeLike
Artaxerxes February 5, 2015 at 7:15 PM …DeeWord, you have to face the reality of how business is conducted the various unscrupulous business practices undertaken in Barbados.———————–
Agreed Artax, I do face that reality.
You have laid out the buddy process that permeates corporate governance the world over and of course in BIM, but directors and CEOs in a corporate settings today can no longer play by those rules as they can be held liable as set out by you and others above.
As you know even the audit firms have to do their job diligently.
Back in the day there was the Big 6 accounting firms and then came Enron…Andersen was criminally prosecuted.
So everyone has to do their job properly.
From all that you guys have said I would be shocked if there is no additional legal peril suffered by directors or others.
It will be a long fight no doubt but it’s a fight to be endured.
We will see.
LikeLike
David, re. your 6:42 pm post;
You said “Good, we have consensus that there is enough evidence for the BRA to impose an audit on Leroy Parris if it has not started already.”
It seems, from the JM’s leaked forensic report, that there is similar evidence for BRA and other authorities to institute an audit of the late DT’s estate but is there the political will, across the political spectrum, to allow the relevant authorities to do such?
Can the DT probated will be “unsealed”? or is there an unwritten law that normally public documents related to Prime Ministers, such as property ownership, wills and divorce settlements, can be lawfully withheld from public scrutiny? … or are the tales of the unavailability of such documents, going as far back as Barrow’s and Tom Adam’s time, merely unsubstantiated rumours?
I guess what I’m really asking is; Is a PM exempted from the application of certain laws for actions that might have been carried out during his or her term in that office?
If this is agreed practice whether legally documented or merely standard practice, then our discussions here would have been an exercise in futility.
LikeLike
@ are-we-there-yet February 5, 2015 at 9:49 PM #
“It seems, from the JM’s leaked forensic report, that there is similar evidence for BRA and other authorities to institute an audit of the late DT’s estate but is there the political will, across the political spectrum, to allow the relevant authorities to do such?”
This matter would be best investigated by the Financial Intelligence Unit. However, based on personal experience I doubt very much [and I may be wrong] that the FIU have any forensic accountants in their employ. Last time I checked the posts were filled by lawyers and former police officers.
As I have previously stated, I made enquires at Personnel Administration relative to employment at the FIU. The lady I spoke with informed me that qualifications for posts include ACCA or a law degree. I told her of my qualifications in fraud examination and forensic accounting, she did not know what I was speaking about and wanted to transfer me to the person who deals with forensic science. After my further explaining to her the what it entails, she told me I should have thought about getting a job before seeking to qualify myself in that area.
LikeLike
Artaxerxes February 5, 2015 at 10:20 PM #…After my further explaining to her the what it entails, she told me I should have thought about getting a job before seeking to qualify myself in that area.————–
I think you have every right to send her a small gift: a brass-bowl !!
Forensic science you say! Classic.
One would have to hope that had you got on to the Chief or Deputy that the conversation would have been different.
LikeLike
Remind me again. What had caused events to turn out the way they did in Trinidad and Tobago on the evening of Friday ,27 July 1990?
LikeLike
@ ac
You didn’t answer the question.
Do you think it is right that David Thompson’s firm should have billed Clico for $3.33million for itemized services when it turns out that the amount billed is actually for Leroy Parris’s “bonus”. Do you think it is right that they should have deducted $500,000 and sent the rest on to Parris?
LikeLike
st .george dragon
yours is a political question that requires a legal answer one that ac is not or have been accessed or avail to all the facts and circumstances surrounding the issues,
any how so far documentation provided by mr. parris lawyer states that the money /monies was due to him. ,on the issue as to how and why the monies were paid (to) whom! and why much debate and conjecture has been added void of comprehensive legal representation
LikeLike
well ! well waiting to see the “real ” test of intestinal fortitude coming from the judicial mangers as they go up against Clico seeking permission to rummage through their files going to get very dicy indeed,
LikeLike
wait was the BU court closed today, looks like it! cause i was trying to enter the courtroom and a bailiff order me out, any how i gave him a message to place in the docket for the next opening session , whenever that will be,
LikeLike
Margaret Sivers the head of BRA is a Chris Sinckler appointee the same Chris Sinckler who Parris gave his wife old Jaguar to which broke down constantly.
Randy Graham who heads the FSC is David Thompson nephew who was also appointed by Chris Sinckler.
Joan Fowler the fool from BIPA still expects a miracle of Justice under the DLP.
LikeLike
@ Bajan New Yorker February 7, 2015 at 9:39 AM
“Randy Graham who heads the FSC is David Thompson nephew who was also appointed by Chris Sinckler.”
No lie here. Quite true. Now you see why the FSC would want to block the unsealing of the second forensic audit report.
Now you see why the BRA will never be unclasped to investigate the tax affairs and financial dealings of leprous Parris?
Too much is at stake here in this hotbed of incestuous political debauchery and corruption.
PS: You and I (including the world) know that poor June Fowler the fool is being used as a pawn in this high stake game. These professional vultures (both legal and accountants) just want to get their hands on some of the ill-gotten gains to increase their fees income. Parris can tell you (from his thieving pal Thornhill) how much has already been siphoned off from the policy premiums to the JM.
What justice what for policyholders and pensioners! Why not charge Leroy Parris for fraud while seizing his assets as was done in the case of Alan Stanford and Bernie Madoff.
LikeLike
BU believes Fowler means well but is very naive in the world of the Machiavellian.
LikeLike
Scumbage that’s what Leroy Parris is and anyone who support him.
LikeLike
Errol Barrow destroyed Barbados when he changed the constitution in 1974.We have a bunch of lackeys appointed to key positions in the public service by that change Barrow introduced.Barbados is independent alright,that is politicians are free to do shoite and get away with it because they are rotten from the head down.One day the crap will stop and there will be those who say”I told you so”.The watchdog wants the Audit remain sealed.The judicial manager appointed by the court want the Audit unsealed.Tables turn.Blood thicker than water .Families first.
LikeLike
Following 90 minutes of in-chambers hearing yesterday before Justice William Chandler, an application by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) to stop the unsealing of the report, the matter was adjourned until March 10.
Reliable legal sources told the SATURDAY SUN the matter was postponed for further deliberation after Deputy Solicitor-General Donna Brathwaite QC appeared before the court and informed the trial judge she was holding a watching brief on behalf of the Director of Finance in the Ministry of Finance.
http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/63193/audit-ruling-delay#sthash.3ixlXhuk.dpuf
LikeLike
It is understood the adjournment was then given to facilitate the Deputy Solicitor General to make submissions to the court as to why her office should be part of the proceedings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WHY???????????
LikeLike
With a matter like this CLICO thing why would the government relax to a watching brief? It is obviously an attempt to orchestrate, obfuscate and delay. Where is the integrity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So they might be able to pause the matter for 6 weeks through this stalling tactic.
“…Napoleon’s plan at Waterloo was fairly standard in terms of the tactics of the day: an extended artillery bombardment, followed by cavalry attacks to force the enemy into square and then further attack by artillery and musket to reap the benefit of the dense formation….”
Do you think it might be possible for these piss poor foot soldiers to stage what would be the equivalent of “calvary attacks” to force the DLP, enemy to the people, into a square etc, etc, etc??
The DLP are relying on two things (i) time – either to influence particular players and decision makers (BTW Chandler is a not a man who can be bribed) or to have the matter “shifted” and “deciders” (George W Bush) replaced by their own and/or (ii) the “half-life of Be6” or the notable lack of staying power on issues that are important to the lives of Bajans expiring, as they normally do, in nine days
March the 10th is roughly five weeks away or 35 days
Given that Bajans forget after 9 days it would mean that, under normal circumstances this matter would have died approximately 4 deaths.
Some might even hope that, if they had a heavenly telephone direct to the BBE, a direct call asking what is approximately 2 deaths more than the cuntry’s version of “National Attention Deficit Disorder” (not to be confused with Physical Deficit) would be all that is required to relieve us from these DLP JAs,
Deo Volens.
LikeLike
@ David February 7, 2015 at 12:52 PM…With a matter like this CLICO thing why would the government relax to a watching brief? It is obviously an attempt to orchestrate, obfuscate and delay. Where is the integrity? ===========
David that is one perspective but isn’t another one that there is a clear possibility of criminal liability and the gov’t is in there getting their criminal prosecution ready.
At least that’s what I hope is the intent of their ‘watching’.
Remember sir this is currently a civil matter to which the gov’t is not a party; it would be foolhardy for them to attempt to orchestrate or obfuscate the proceedings publicly in that way.
If they just want to derail or obfuscate they can do that better in the back ground.
We will see.
LikeLike
@DeeWord
Given the historical societal behaviour at play here we are willing to say apologize if proved wrong.
LikeLike
@ DeeWord February 7, 2015 at 2:05 PM
“David that is one perspective but isn’t another one that there is a clear possibility of criminal liability and the gov’t is in there getting their criminal prosecution ready.
At least that’s what I hope is the intent of their ‘watching’.
Remember sir this is currently a civil matter to which the gov’t is not a party; it would be foolhardy for them to attempt to orchestrate or obfuscate the proceedings publicly in that way.”
You can’t really be serious, can you?
Criminal Prosecution? Who has the final say whether a serious criminal matter is pursued in a court of law in Barbados? Not the DPP?
We already told the BU household that Leroy Greenverbs Parris from Lemon Arbour is the “smartest”, if not the most socially obnoxious and intellectually defective, man in Barbados.
Do you really feel he and Duprey would have overlooked these possible spanners in the works and would not have blocked any avenues to prosecution and justice through financial inducements that would act as future millstones around the necks of the tarnished and corrupt recipients?
We thought by now you would have learned from the Carrington fiasco what is really going on in the fettered execution of justice and the absence of any moral fibre of integrity that ought to comprise the backbone of the current political administration based on the fourth pillar of the contract (“good honest governance”) erected and sealed with the people’s consent at the last general election.
We are just dealing with a bunch of liars , thieves criminally minded and corrupt political and bureaucratic officials who, together, could make the mafia look like a club of retired boy scouts.
LikeLike
Pingback: DWP trust leaders are blocking city audit, says Controller Ron Galperin - Trendingnewsz.com
Leroy Parris arrested.
LikeLike