Barbados Bankers’ Association the New Third Party?

Donna Wellington, President, Barbados Bankers’ Association (BBA).

Submitted by Caswell Franklyn, General Secretary, Unity Workers Union

It is no secret that I believe that the present DLP administration is bad for Barbados. Now it appears that this view is shared by the Barbados Bankers’ Association (BBA). They have announced that due to a “lack of clarity” on the process involved in the issuance of tax clearance certificates by the Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA), banks had to suspend real estate transactions. As a result, banks have suspended approximately $221 million worth of real estate related transactions.

I could be wrong but I don’t believe so; to my mind, that announcement is double speak to say that the Government is bad for business and they are prepared to take short term losses to help rid the country of this DLP administration.

I firmly believe that the announcement is a calculated move to influence political change. When the banks put pressure on potential borrowers and blame their actions on the BRA, those borrowers would become angry with the Government. People who could not get loans would not be happy with the DLP and come voting time that anger would be reflected in the results.

Even though I believe that the BBA and I share the view that the DLP is bad for business, I deplore the method adopted by them. They should be patriotically urging taxpayers to pay their fair share of the tax burden that is being heaped upon the people of this country.

I would advise the Barbados Bankers’ Association to stay away from involvement in politics on the sly and be honest enough to declare their hand.


  • Caswell Franklyn

    Neither have they initiated investigations into all those general secretaries who got duty free cars and who refuse to pay the relevant taxes, even though the Revenue Commissioner promised me that she would do her job without fear of favour. You must therefore ask: Was she allowed?

    Sent from my iPad


  • “In the case of Mr Parris, if the state has a case against him they must bring charges. Otherwise the whispers and public abuse are not only undemocratic, but infringes his human rights.”

    RUBBISH… as usual.

    Seems as though “the whispers and public abuse” the author extends to others, via this forum, are not only in his opinion “democratic, but does not infringe their human rights.”


  • @ Artax
    If you knew Hal at school you would be completely unsurprised at some of the nonsense that he spouts…. besides, he has not been around here for forty years – yet he feels qualified to prescribe like Bushie …who got roots all over the damn place…
    Steupsss…. to his credit… he occasionally ask some good questions….

    …but then again you still have a lotta school-days habits too…
    ha ha ha ha


  • Yeah, Bushie…. and this “whacker” thing is a school-days thing, too…….. I had one at school.



  • @ Artax

    I am full of rubbish, but what is rubbish about making a case for the rule of law: if there is a case against the accused, then charge him, if not let him be. I know Barbadian reasoning is such that to be accused is to be guilty. Ask those 13 yr old school kids now before the courts.

    @ Bushie

    Wrong again. I did not go to school. Wrong person.


  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Caswell FranklynMay 30, 2017 at 8:21 AM

    And you see where many of the fiscal problems lie? Not with the bankers objection to the need for tax clearance certificates but with the sheer managerial incompetence and the blatant partisan politicization of the BRA as prevails at other statutory bodies like the Transport Board, CBC, RDC and UDC.

    If the BRA was ‘managed’ by a politically fearless and competent BoD and executive team many of the country’s fiscal issues would not be glaringly festering with such open nasty wounds being treated by the ineffective imposition of additional taxation which the idiot MoF would soon be announcing.

    Barbados is not geographically large and socially diverse corrupt Nigeria but a 2×3 island with a simple economy with a modern ITC infrastructure available for use.


  • Carson C. Cadogan


    The next time you see Mr. Mia Mottley or your other Lawyer friends don’t neglect to tell them that the system will not be repealed.

    The RICH will have to pay their share of taxes just like the rest of us. Pay unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

    And by the way the Banks holding up all Real estate transactions is really a good thing for the country. One of the things we said that we would do on being elected to office would be to reduce the wholesale selling of Barbados. As a result the Banks are unwittingly playing into our hands.

    Real estate transactions which would see the transfer of large chunks of Barbados into foreign hands have now been halted. I am very happy about that. Real estate transactions which would see properties and land being transferred into the hands of INDIANS and thus being lost the BLACK Bajans forever have now been halted and I hope forever.

    So in a way THANK YOU local Banks. I know that this was not your intention but thanks anyway.


  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Hal AustinMay 30, 2017 at 8:55 AM

    Hal you are speaking with a forked tongue as far as this matter is concerned.

    Who is going to charge and prosecute the “estimable person” with big friends in very high places when the person ‘legally empowered’ to institute such proceedings is the same person whom you constantly referred to as that “incompetent Guyanese-born DPP”?

    You need to get your ducks all lined up before shooting your mouth off.

    You are dealing with socially incestuous Barbados where nepotism is the passport for blatant law-breaking.

    Ask the Baloney fella and the rich man who killed his son while “cleaning” his gun how easy it is to get those in charge to look the other way’ whereas, on the other hand, an ordinary man with no such connections is charged for the killing of his young child by leaving it locked in the back seat of a vehicle.

    You see how easy it is to charge children for fighting while those in high places who commit similar wrong and illegal acts are invited to sit as directors on statutory boards?


  • What is the problem? Speaking with a forked tongue, corruption, a failed state? Is this the society that claims to be developed?
    All I am saying, something that right thinking Barbadians should support, is that no matter the person or problem, they will be treated fairly, that is what the rule of law is all about.
    If there is a case against senior Clico executives in Barbados, then prosecute them; and t hat should have been done before the joke of a so-called judicial management review.
    What is wrong with that?
    About the judicial abuse of those children, that is evil on par with the worst of China. Does it mean every school kid that gets in to a fight will be prosecuted? It is judicial barbarism; a brain dead criminal justice system.


  • @ Hal Austin

    Rubbish again!!!!

    The following excerpt was taken from page 7 of Deloitte’s “Forensic Audit of CLICO International Life Insurance Ltd. report as of June 21, 2013.”

    “Payment to Thompson and Associates: Our report dated December 5, 2011 noted that our analysis of CIL intercompany balances revealed a January 16, 2009 payment to Thompson and Associates for $3.333M, made by CIL on behalf of CHBI. The payment was supported by an invoice purportedly from Thompson and Associates dated December 30, 2008. Other documents we viewed showed that this payment was apparently made pursuant to a letter agreement dated December 5, 2002, which we have been unable to locate, and a May 15, 2005 agreement between CHBL, CL Financial Limited and Professional Financial Services Inc. (PFS), a company apparently owned and or controlled by Mr. Leroy Parris, the former Chairman and CEO of CIL and CHBL.”

    “As of the date of our 2011 report, we found that payment was in the nature of a gratuity pursuant to the above noted agreements and was NOT in respect of the “Fees and Expenses” described on the Thompson and Associates invoice.”

    “The invoice was SIGNED as APPROVED by Mr. Leroy Parris as Chairman of CHBL.”

    I also invite you to READ pages 8 to 12 of the aforementioned report.

    Anyone, who upon reading the report, would not have to rely on the state to bring charges against Parris to reasonably conclude that such action is TANTAMOUNT to FRAUD.

    If CLICO was legally and legitimately obligated to pay Parris a gratuity in the sum of $3.333M, why would he have to undertake a QUESTIONABLE PROCESS of having a “related party” (Thompson & Associates) prepare an invoice to FACILITATE payment of that obligation, under the guise of RENDERING legal services to CLICO?

    Also, the authenticity of the invoice also comes into question where a VAT registered law firm issues an invoice, net of VAT and without the company’s VAT registration number.

    Under these circumstances, where is the evidence to suggest that, where an individual comes to reasonable conclusion (and NOT an assumption), based on certain information received, they are “making a case for the rule of law?”

    Based on your logic, then you would dismiss the results of the forensic report as being irrelevant because the state has not brought a case against Parris.

    The only people that want to hold Parris up as innocent in this matter, are you and the man on the “Cream of Wheat” box.


  • @ Carson C. Cadogan

    I cannot tell Mia Mottley anything because the only time I see her is on television. And I do not have lawyer friends either.

    Perhaps you are the one with the “lawyer friends,” since it is being REPORTED as FACT that you are indeed Michael Lashley using CCC’s name to spout your rhetorical political diatribe via social media.

    If that assumption is NOT true, then it is ironic that you are using BU to freely insult Mia Mottley everyday about mentioning lesbian and same sex marriages, but would like to SILENCE Naked Departure when that forum leaks interesting stories about your “kith and kin.”

    I have personal knowledge of a case involving your “lawyer friend” who also duped a “returning national” of a considerable amount of money and the case, which is yet to be heard, has the client frustrated at the DELAYS in court system.

    But when Omar videotaped and posted to social media, your “lawyer friend” running for his life after a man “washed him in licks,” he felt aggrieved and sought assistance of the law courts, which ironically “IMMEDIATELY EXPEDITED” the case.

    Your “lawyer friend” also felt aggrieved when “Naked Departure” presented a number of articles, and “proof” in some instances, which associated him with a certain vehicular accident. And he canvassed for the “shutting down” of the ND website.

    CCC is always mentioning on BU making pejorative statements about Muslims, yet his “lawyer friend” appointed a former DLP candidate, who is also a Muslim, as Chairman of a certain department, and we have seen ZR permits significantly increased to ZR405 (a route 11 route taxi) and owned by Muslims.

    You should ponder on these things!!!


  • Artax,

    I am embarrassed to think you are a lawyer. I am not and it is clear to me that if the state had forensic evidence they would have brought charges. Gossip is not evidence.
    In any jurisdiction – at least in England and Wales, which I know quite well – if there was a prima facie case against any senior executives of Clico the duty of the state would be to bring charges, not leave it to a load of retired semi-educated idiots to pontificate in a discussion forum about the integrity of the suspects. There may well be a case, but delay is unjust.
    This has been on the boil for years, even in the incompetent jurisdiction of Barbados that is more than enough time to bring charges.
    Artax, you have wasted your money on your legal education. Ask for it back. I hope your clients get a better service, but I doubt it. Fraud is a crime, mis-management is not.
    By the way, I hope to be in Barbados soonish and will be prepared to debate the legality of this case with you in public, if you so desire.;


  • @ Hal Austin

    And what QUALIFIES you to CONCLUDE or DETERMINE that any EVIDENCE presented as a result of a FORENSIC AUDIT is gossip?

    You seem to be suggesting that ALL contributors to BU are “retired semi-educated idiots.” Since you are retired, I’m sure you’re included in that characterization. However, since I am far from retirement age, I’ll settle for being a “semi-educated idiot.”

    Also, where in any of my contributions I INDICATED or SUGGESTED I am a LAWYER? I guess such conclusions are often made by “retired semi-educated idiots” such as yourself or perhaps because you are a Pulitzer prized investigative journalist.

    You never cease to amaze me with your condescending sanctimonious attitude. EVERYONE and EVERYTHING in Barbados is WRONG, while Hal Austin is CORRECT.

    You are CRITICAL of every BU contributor, economist, accountant, lawyer, doctor, nurse, pharmacist, engineer, surveyor, university lecturer, the university and everything possible person or thing in Barbados. You even dismiss Jeff Cumberbatch’s views on law and he is a lawyer and law lecturer.

    You must be a very lonely man to come to this forum just to be critical.

    Join the UK version of BARP.


  • Aretax,

    First, I know you can be economical with the truth. I have never been dismissive of Jeff Cumberbatch. In fact, I have called for a campaign to make Jeff a QC. I may not agree with everything he says, but bow to his expertise on local law. I deliberately only contribute on discussions on which I have had training or experience.
    As to being condescending, I believe I am too polite to be rude.
    Fundamentally, unless evidence is subjected to cross-examination in a court of law, it is hearsay (ie gossip). That is the law of evidence.


  • @ Hal Austin

    And “I am (equally) embarrassed to think you are a (journalist).”

    Fraud may be defined as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”

    How can you conclude that issuing an invoice for “A” to facilitate the payment of “B,” is defined as mis-management and not fraud?


  • @Carson C. Cadogan May 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM #

    I just cant understand why the Barbados Labour Party and the Bar assoc. are in the forefront of trying to prevent RICH people from paying their fair share of taxes? Lawyers steal clients money every year and not a word of condemnation is heard from the Bar Assoc.

    You are bold as brass to actually write the above comment……….and yet you and the dems
    defended Carrywayaton …………a disgrace who still sits in the chair of the honourable house.

    You guys are rich in hypocrisy.


  • Didn’t Maurice King (itemized on the said 3.3 million invoice) deny making this claim? It is why the question asked by BU of BRA remains relevant and pertinent. Has Parris been audited?


  • And you are similarly economical with the truth.

    So, you are essentially implying the police arrests a suspect based on “hearsay (i.e. gossip),” because the “evidence” they gathered that led to the arrest has NOT been “subjected to cross-examination in a court of law.”

    Then the caution should be revised from: “Anything you do say may be given in evidence” to “Anything you do say may be given as “hearsay (i.e. gossip)”


  • @Hal

    The Forensic Audit report is a public document you know. It appears you never read it. The only reason Parris is not having to defend against criminal/civil proceedings is because the matter is under judicial management read sealed by the Court.

    Click to read the Deloitte_CLICO Report


  • Artax,

    Where did you get your legal training? Police arrest on the grounds of a prima facie case, but that is not guilt. That comes in a court of law when evidence is tested under cross-examination or if the accused pleads guilty. Anything else is hearsay or gossip.
    For a nation obsessed with the law this basic knowledge is sadly missing. Plse get the basics right.


  • @ David

    Hal Austin is suggesting that the invoice you posted is “hearsay (i.e. gossip)” or mis-management and not fraud.

    And people expect me to seriously consider him as a journalist (perhaps at the National Enquirer).

    I dun wid he…… clearly a joker.


  • David,
    I have a copy of the report. In case you missed what I said before, and I realise that you have to repeat yourself many times with some people, any criminal charges should have come before the nonsense of a judicial management review.
    In fact, with a good lawyer, anyone from Clico prosecuted could claim that the judicial management report has prejudiced a fair trial. It is certainly Mr Parris’s case.
    As far as I am aware, he has not been questioned under caution; some nutcase Canadian bank barred him from having an account for no legitimate reason; and even in this forum, some mentally ill man/woman obsessed with insurance companies, smears the man almost daily.
    Where is the justice?


  • Hal Austin

    Where in my contribution did I mention the police arresting a suspect is INDICATIVE of that suspect being GUILTY?

    You seem to have an allergic reaction to comprehension. I am now convinced that you are not a journalist.


  • Artax,

    David’s ‘invoice’ is not evidence. Please. Evidence is what is presented in court and tested. This is what you learn on O level law courses.


  • @Hal

    You are being disingenuous or Trump like with your exchanges. In any criminal proceeding this fake invoice would be included in discovery. The point to restate is that in T&T and Barbados criminal cases have not been instituted. You are aware given Parris’ visibility in DLP and regional politics he would have been labelled a PEP?


  • “So, you are essentially implying the police arrests a suspect based on “hearsay (i.e. gossip),” because the “evidence” they gathered that led to the arrest has NOT been “subjected to cross-examination in a court of law.” This is what you have said.

    Until the evidence is tested it is hearsay. That is elementary which you could have learned in any comprehensive school. And to imply in previous submissions that you are legally trained (with talk about your clients) is a disgrace.
    Police arrest on suspicion; suspicion is not evidence of guilt.


  • Hal Austin

    “Artax May 30, 2017 at 1:23 PM #: @ David: Hal Austin is suggesting that the invoice you posted is “hearsay (i.e. gossip)” or mis-management and not fraud.”

    Could you please indicate to me where in the above comments I stated that the invoice was EVIDENCE?

    And comprehension is TAUGHT at PRIMARY SCHOOL.

    Shiite, Hal Austin, what are you really trying to prove? That you are more educated than anyone who contributes to BU?

    Enough of you and this shiite.


  • Hal Austin May 30, 2017 at 1:37 PM #

    “And to imply in previous submissions that you are legally trained (with talk about your clients) is a disgrace.”

    Hal Austin


    I have NEVER, EVER WRITTEN in ANY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS in this forum THAT I AM LEGALLY TRAINED (with talk about (my) clients).

    But, you are absolutely correct, in this case you are presenting “hearsay (i.e. gossip)” and NOT evidence.


  • Vincent Haynes

    Wuhlaw…wuhlaw…….what a tour de force…………..Hahaha……..and Hal sticking to his guns irrespective of all that is tossed at him……only a court case will suffice for him.

    Chuckle…..That may yet come.


  • Artax,

    Sit down and take a deep breath. Until David’s invoice – or the original – is present in court and tested under cross-examination it is hearsay. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is not rocket science.
    To be accused is not to be guilty, unless you are a 13 yr old school kid.
    I do not want to be held to it, but you have previously talked about your clients in relation to the BRA, but it may b some other govt department.


  • David,
    I am not being disingenuous. It appears as if you are like Artax, ignorant of the law of evidence. Until the invoice is presented in a court of law and tested by the defence attorneys, it is what is called in some jurisdictions hearsay. Until then, David, it is just a bit of paper.


  • @Hal

    This is the BU forum and NOT a court of law. As ordinary folk we are simply saying that coming out of a forensic audit done by a global brand there were damming findings made public. If the same accounting firm had issued a note on a company in the UK the FT you worked for would have felt obligated to investigate why the note.

    There is enough ‘evidence’ for us regular folks to demand closer investigation of Parris, Thornhill and co and Clico related transactions.


  • David,
    Closer investigation is not guilt or evidence of guilt. Remember: innocent until proven guilty. You have made the point better than I: this is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Then we must stop pretending that a piece of paper is evidence of guilt. BU is not a court of law.
    Forget the bogus judicial management review. It was a waste of money.


  • @Hal

    Final comment, there is enough ‘evidence’ in the public space to merit greater urgency by the authorities. Also remember that Barbados is a small place.


  • On May 29 Artax wrote about ‘clients’:
    I agree with your above comments. Over the years, I became familiar with many Inland Revenue officers because I had to communicate and interact with them when I’m acting on behalf of clients.


  • @Hal

    Based on the evidence you have produced a better conclusion is that Artax is an accountant…lol


  • David,

    Last word or first, we cannot keep excusing our incompetence about being a small island. It was DeLisle Worrell’s excuse about a small open society.
    We either have the rule of law or we do not. Corrupt people in high office should be driven out, not tolerated.


  • @ Hal Austin

    Perhaps it’s you that should sit down and take a deep breath and cease from attributing to me and responding to comments I have not written.

    Why do you make the silly comments of associating knowledge to age or level of learning? I’m sure that there are “13 year old school kids” who have a higher IQ than yours and are able to articulate themselves through writing on a much better level than you.

    Once again, you are being economical with the truth and “creating your own straw men to knock them down,” perhaps to suit your self aggrandizement agenda. Stop the rhetoric and answer the questions, PLEASE!!!!!

    Could you please INDICATE to me WHERE in any of my contributions I mentioned TO BE ACCUSED is TO BE GUILTY?
    Also, are you suggesting that my reference to a client and the BRA SUGGESTS that I am a LAWYER?
    Or are you of the opinion that lawyers are the ONLY individuals QUALIFIED to act on behalf of clients at the BRA?

    Only the “13 year old school kid” you referred to in your contribution would make such an erroneous assumption.

    Hal Austin you are a very indigenous individual. I’m not convinced you are a real journalist.


  • Hal is , and always has been, someone who will do and say any shiite in order to be noticed.
    No wonder he uses his real name…

    Why Artax would choose to continue such a back-and-forth in the face of such clear nonsense can only be explained by the fact that angela has been unusually quiet in the last few days (probably making inputs into the budget) …and therefore unavailable to take her usual licks…

    Wuhloss !!!


  • @ Artax
    You probably mean “invidious” rather than “indigenous”, but that is not really the case…
    the correct word is “pathetic” ….


  • @ David

    Hal Austin is essentially guilty of engaging in what he is accusing you and I of undertaking.

    The “invoice has to be presented in court and tested under cross examination, “otherwise we would be making an assumption based on hearsay.

    Yet, he used my comments as “evidence” to erroneously state I implied in previous submissions that I’m legally trained.”

    Until Hal Austin “presents my original statement in court and it is tested under cross-examination” his assumption I am a lawyer “is based on hearsay. That is what the rule of law is all about. It is not rocket science.”

    “To be accused is not to be guilty, unless you are a 13 yr old school kid.”

    Hal Austin is a joker.


  • @ Bush Tea

    The evils of spell check, I meant to use the word “disingenuous.”


  • Bat yuh hand Bushie!


  • @ enuff

    …gallows bait…!!!


  • Lol…but Bushie Hal talking a lotta foolishness. The invoice is evidence in BU and the wider public and if presented in court it would become evidence of the court. The infamous Ken Lay of Enron was locked up, although there was a lack of oversight by the relevant agency.


  • Scotiabank profit rises 10% to $2.01B of net income


  • @ Enuff
    Lol…but Bushie Hal talking a lotta foolishness.
    Everybody knows that … including Hal…
    But yet, when he start pelting some hot licks in Bushie’s tail,
    …you will be first one deading wid laugh
    …and urging him on…

    …ain’t it??!!


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s