164 comments

  • Paradise will become a billion dollar resort a few years from now.

    Like

  • A couple of things. Firstly, the people of Barbados have EVERY right to know who are the vendors and purchasers of any land that is in the government hands / control, all of the terms of sale and any special concessions.

    It is a requirement of anti-money laundering legislation to know who the principles are behind any company. Banks require it, the regulator requires it.

    Why should the people of a country demand less??

    Secondly, interesting that no one has picked up on the real reason behind the ‘cell phone use’ law and the ‘sticker’ clampdown.

    It is very subtle and very clever.

    It is not to prevent dangerous driving, after how many years??? As for stickers, what harm can they do??

    No, the real reason that no one has mentioned, logically is to initiate a culture of obedience, such that the people follow instructions and feel intimidated.

    That my friends, is the reason.

    Think about it.

    Like

  • @Well Well & Cut N’ Paste At Your Service February 23, 2018 at 6:52 AM #

    At the town hall meeting last Sunday, Tony Best questioned P.M. Stuart on his reluctance to reshuffle his cabinet. The prime minister said he didn’t have to prove he is a man and show that he has the power to move people around. He said the late prime minister David Thompson took office in January 2008 and had a reshuffle around July of the that year and another one early in 2009. He emphasised much thought went into his selection of ministers and he is generally satisfied with their performances, but when anyone fall below the standard he expects, he called him/her aside and gives guidance in what he perceives to be his/her area(s) of weakness.
    In answering an earlier question, he expressed total satisfaction with Sinckler’s performance as minister of finance. He said Sinckler is extremely intelligent and very hard working, and he believes the biggest problem people have with him being minister of finance is where he went to school, which incidentally is the same problem many people have with him being prime minister he added.

    Like

  • “extremly intelligent” ??? The least gifted man in Barbadian history. Master of 2X downgrades. The man who drove the Switzerland of the Caribbean into the abyss.

    “very hard working” ??? Marston Gibson´s (yes, the leisure king of the Caribbean who puts “family and live” above the country and the common good, supervisor of egg and quiz games, holder of a RHODES[sic!] scholarship) brother in mind.

    Obviously, the official Barbadian standards are 50 % below common Caribbean standards and 75 % below standards in developed countries. Just look at the many degraded figures who got appointed during the last 10 years as judges, high bureaucrats et al.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Bajan…that is the same jackass of a prime minister who said that an 80 year old archaic regressive law…… is perfectly suitable to use in 2018.

    Like

  • @Crusoe
    “It is a requirement of anti-money laundering legislation to know who the principles are behind any company. Banks require it, the regulator requires it.”

    I believe, you are partially correct. Here are the various legislation and guidelines, in Barbados.
    http://www.barbadosfiu.gov.bb/legislation.htm

    Yet where, within any of the Acts or guidelines does it say, the information obtained, by any of the listed bodies to ensure compliance as required, must be made public?

    What you seem to be suggesting is a separate set of rules for any person/company who transacts business with the GoB? And it really only applies to individuals or private companies or Trusts, because if Sagicor or Massy or the Gov of St.lucia were the purchaser, such queries would not arise. Nor even if it was a well known private company, whether we actually knew the precise ownership or not.

    And so once again on BU, we get back to what candidates for elected office give a lot of long talk to when campaigning, but cannot enact once elected. Integrity and Transparency Legislation.

    Like

  • @Northern Observer

    The last part of your comment sums it up. Successive political parties have failed to up de ting as far as implementing integrity and transparency legislation. This is the only true measure to judge the integrity of the players. Listening to the exchanges between the two sides in parliament before the walkout it is clear ‘dem laughing at we’.

    Like

  • @Bajan in NY ..

    ”’…believes the biggest problem people have with him being minister of finance is where he went to school, which incidentally is the same problem many people have with him being prime minister..”’

    Second time I have seen such a comment from that direction.

    Clearly major chip on the shoulder.

    Oh, and pertaining to Sinckler…. no, the problem people have with Sinckler, is that he is incompetent.

    Oh…dear, actually that IS just like him.

    Like

  • @Northern Observer,

    I am not partially right. I am right.

    The issue is context. Yes, in transactions dealing with state owned assets, there is a need for heightened transparency, one of the tenets of the anti-money laundering framework.

    Remember, substance over form.

    In the context, it is essential that the particulars are fully vented. When the persons structuring the transactions are the very ones who ‘could’ benefit, it must be fully transparent.

    A lot of people forget substance over form and the underlying reason for the legislation, but it is critical in enforcing such legislation and even in understanding the purpose of the framework.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver February 24, 2018 at 3:15 AM #

    It is called know your customer and is the reason why non-US banks are intimidated by US regulators. It is fear of being fined by the money-thirsty Yanks for poor moneylaundering provisions. It is the reason why the Canadians do not want Mr Parris as a customer.
    By the way, the biggest moneylaundering institutions in the world are American.

    Like

  • @Crusoe

    On a wider note are you aware of any person (entity) who has been prosecuted under the Money Laundering Act?

    Like

  • @David,

    Not any large entities. But I have seen some reported in the law news of the papers, who have been charged in the context of fraud / conversion as well, along with the money laundering.

    I think some have lost licenses for IBC’s due to concerns. Cannot verify.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver February 24, 2018 at 3:15 AM #

    “And so once again on BU, we get back to what candidates for elected office give a lot of long talk to when campaigning, but cannot enact once elected. Integrity and Transparency Legislation.”

    Northern Observer

    Your above comment reminded me of the DLP’s 2008 general election campaign promises as articulated on pages 46 to 48 of their 2008 manifesto.

    “Good Governance ASSURES that CORRUPTION is MINIMIZED, the VIEWS of the PEOPLE are TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT and that the voices of the most vulnerable members of society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. Barbados needs Good Governance now like it never has before.” [Page 46]

    However, Sinckler calling June Fowler a “bald pooch cat;” Stuart and Sinckler cussing David Comissiong, Akanni McDowell and Charles Herbert; Irene Sandiford-Garner, Esther Byer-Suckoo, Verla Depieza and Denis Kellman characterizing people as traitors, unpatriotic and guilty of treason………..

    ……………..and the DLP in general, along with its yard-fowl supporters, cussing any individual, organisation or special interest group that express their democratic right to question certain decisions made by this administration……

    ………..are examples of this arrogant DLP administration ATTEMPTING to SUPPRESS “the VIEWS of the PEOPLE.”

    Like

  • David February 24, 2018 at 6:30 AM #

    “On a wider note are you aware of any person (entity) who has been prosecuted under the Money Laundering Act?”

    David BU

    Do you mean charged and prosecuted under the Money Laundering Act by the Police……

    ……..or the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or the Anti Money Laundering Authority (as described by the Money Laundering & Financing of Terrorism (Prevention & Control) Act 2011?

    Like

  • @Artax

    Thanks for the clarification, it is the latter.

    Like

  • Talking about money laundering and the seizure of assets etc. i cam across this recently. It is old, 2013, but still interestingreading”
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
    Taken
    Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing?

    Like

  • @Tron February 21, 2018 at 8:42 PM “the provision in Barbados that the employer must provide work clothes.”

    Not true.

    Whoever told you this was deceiving you.

    Like

  • Why is Bizzy then running around the island in his white shirt with a big green Willy Industries sticker on it?

    Like

  • @NorthernObserver February 23, 2018 at 1:44 PM “They have a right to know the company is a legally registered entity. And you showed from your first post, that it is.”

    I’ve heard that British Columbia is requiring or is soon to require that companies reveal who are the real-real people who own companies. Soon Ontario and Quebec may follow.

    Why not Barbados?

    Who the hell are the real-real owners of this pharisitical company?

    We want to know is it Annie Alleyne, Barry Brown, Curtis Cumberbatch

    And if it was me, I would never call my company PHARLICIPLE.

    Sounds too much like Pharisee. And Pharisees don’t have such a good reputation.

    Like

  • @Tron February 24, 2018 at 1:44 PM “Why is Bizzy then running around the island in his white shirt with a big green Willy Industries sticker on it?”

    Please don’t write like that.

    You know what I read your statement as?

    Why is Bizzy then running around the island…with a big green Willy?

    Like

  • Lynette Eastmond made a good point this week on the talk show, in summary- there is nothing preventing our legislators from enacting laws that suits how we want to do business.

    Like

  • Dr. Simple Simon February 24, 2018 at 12:59 PM #

    There is civil legislation in most developed countries that compel people to explain their wealth. If Barbadians would not do it for politicians, do you think they will do it for businesspeople, especially the dodgy hedge fund managers buying multi-million dollar properties on the West coast?
    More than that, look at David Ames, being investigated by the SFO in the UK, but so not a whimper from the Barbados authorities.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Northern knows he is talking damn nonsense.

    Like

  • Northern et al,

    Here is one great example of why the principals of any company investing in assets significant to the country, should be clearly and fully declared and assessed.

    Two words.

    Cahill Energy.

    When the folks on BU investigated the corporate documents, it was found to be a shell company. Then and only then did people generally know what was really going on.

    Case closed, M’Lud.

    Like

  • @DrSS
    do you really think there is a difference between politicians, that operate in essentially an identical system to get elected, depending on geography?

    The need, and calls, for legislation has been around for years, and what have they done? issued various sets of “guidelines”. They do not wish to touch legislation with a 10ft pole. Promises. Promises. Promises.

    The difference is Canada has one sh!t load of natural resources, and other revenue earning tools, which allows them to get away with much. Do you know that Ontario, just the province, has a debt in excess today of $300 Billion.

    Like

  • @Crusoe
    You seem to be of the opinion, that I object to what “should/could be”.
    What I point out is what “should/could be” is not “what is”.

    Therefore, ENACT the required legislation. Let all parties to a transaction know what is required BY LAW. Not some ‘guideline’ nor ‘suggestion’ which is easily avoided.

    Demanding a ‘right to know’ when there are no corresponding legal requirements is a waste of breath.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver February 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM #

    Fair enough. That said, that demand worked in the case of Cahill, correct?

    If Barbados had investigative reporters, instead of leaving it yo BU, light would have shone on Cahill much earlier.

    Anyway, that BU got to it and exposed the reality, without ‘corresponding legal requirements’, should be encouraging.

    Likely Pharciple is incorporated here, where they can hide the principals, unlike other jurisdictions that have internet access to such holdings.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Northern is talking nonsense.

    Knowing of the corrupt practices of both governments, it’s in the best interest of Bajans not to ignore or accept companies that have no history and who no one has any information about, even if because of government negligence and cover ups, particularly when taxpayer’s money, entities and interests are involved..

    ……these shady companies have to be brought to the attention of international policing and regulating agencies…a blind eye must never be turned to shady companies anywhere in the Caribbean…no one else in the world does that.

    .because Fruendel and Sinckler are keeping secrets from the population, does not mean the public cannot investigate themselves…or have to remain silent and suffering in silence…as Northern will have them do.

    There are worldwide investigations ongoing into shady, secretive companies…just request that Pharliciple be added to the list by contacting the relevant agencies in case they are into money laundering, tax fraud etc, see how the secretive criminals who always seek to rob the people on the island like that one.

    Because the two governments do not want transparency…does not mean the public cannot enforce it themselves.

    Like

  • The Government of Barbados should not sell property without full disclosure to the public

    including the names of owners/directors of the purchaser.

    Barbados is a capitalist democracy.

    Like

  • @Crusoe
    the pdf document provided has some “spaces” between the pages. There is an unidentified signature one assumes on behalf of Pharliciple. It looks like Plin….(???), but could be anything. In most places one has to identify in caps, who the signature belongs to?

    @Hants
    there is an old saying “people in glass houses shouldn’t pelt rocks”. You should examine some of your local government transactions, and cross reference with the Company registrar, and tell me the information you request. See if the listed director and offices for Ontario 2367548 Ltd o/a Pegusus Investments, (just a wild example) isn’t a P.O.Box or law office, and the listed director, isn’t the same person who incorporated the company (lawyer or other agent). That it has issued an unlimited number of common shares of no par value, and not a clue who owns 1 or 1000 or 1,000,000 shares. I can tell you the green energy program under the current administration yields some interesting candidates.

    Further, investigate certain crowns, the old ORC is a minefield. They would settle multi-million $$$ lawsuits ‘out of court’ and you cannot find who they settled with or how much.

    Like

  • @ NorthernObserver who wrote “there is an old saying “people in glass houses shouldn’t pelt rocks”. You should examine some of your local government transactions,”

    I am a Bajan. My financial glass house is in Barbados.

    My position will not change.

    Government should not sell government owned property without full disclosure to the public.

    Like

  • Well Well & Cut N' Paste At Your Service

    Ah guess Northern has not read the PAC Report,

    Like

  • @Hants
    I am not asking you to change.
    Just appreciate the dilemma, when your ‘financial glass house’ and your ‘personal glass house’ are not one and the same.

    Like

  • Maybe we are seeing why the government sees the need to extend its tenure of government into the 90 day discretionary period the Constitution allows. They need to complete a few transactions on behalf of Bjerkham and Temple? They didn’t get the big transaction of CAHILL now they are able to close on a piece of rock at a prime location. And thy have picked it up for spit.

    Like

  • The upside is that these people maybe able to inject some value to the area which has been derelict for years.

    Like

  • This is a swipe for 6 at the end of an innings in a game you are going to lose.

    Like

  • @Hants

    This is about payback.

    #campaignfinancing

    Like

  • Is Bd$120m the market value of the property? Has it been under-valued? If so, does this mean that other payments may be made, in private or otherwise? Is such a sale something that should have been completed just days before a general election? Who advised the government on this sale?

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    But…this deal dates back to 2014-15? Or has it been “back dated”?

    Like

  • NorthernObserver March 4, 2018 at 11:34 AM #

    When was it signed off?

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    When you read the conveyance shown above it says Dec 2014. The Sunday Sun Article shown today, says they were 2 separate conveyances, and I have no idea when the second was dated.(but assume it is the same)

    Like

  • The Minister of Finance announced in Parliament many times that we were to have a Four Seasons day when that matter would be debated and all would be revealed. Parliament will be dissolved March 5, 2018 unless the Prime Minister instructs the Governor General to do so before. Its last session for this term was Friday March 2,2018 and we have not had that day as yet. Barbadians need FULL DISCLOSURE of this sale given that taxpayers money went into providing a guarantee to this project by way of the government of Barbados owned (and thereby taxpayer owned) company Clearwater Bay which is party to the conveyance. Why is this sale where the conveyance seen dates back to more than 3 year ago now being made public on the close of the parliamentary term and eve of an election?

    Like

  • @BarbadosFirst

    Are you saying in a quite way that Sinckler has been proved a liar yet again?

    Like

  • Later this year MIA will become Prime Minister. Four Seasons COULD be developed and given

    the similar concessions to what Sandals got.

    BLP DLP…..same difference to the rich and about to get rich…er!

    Like

  • @Hants

    Many had hoped Sinckler would have delivered on a promise to have a day in parliament to debate Four Seasons. Particularly because Mia is known as one of the lawyers involved. It is noteworthy that the late David Thompson selected Avinash Persaud to lead the failed attempt to rescue the project. There is lot for the public to be clues into regarding how public funds were spent on a private project.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver March 4, 2018 at 11:34 AM #

    Until contracts are exchanged there is no sale.

    Like

  • @ David,

    From as far back as I can remember BU and some bloggers were asking for Transparency and

    Freedom of information to be legislated.

    The public should not have to “clue into” how public funds were spent on a private project.

    Like

  • @Hants

    Now we understand why the government needs the extra time before blowing the whistle.

    Like

  • @ David,

    The rich are said to give to both politically parties.

    The “extra time” is to create more dense smoke to hide the trip to the IMF.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    Hal,
    I am no lawyer. Just following what the Blogmaster posted within this thread a few days ago
    “David February 22, 2018 at 2:09 AM #
    Former AG Marshall posted the following to Facebook:

    Dale Marshall
    4 hrs ·

    So….. you should note that the Deed or conveyance is dated December 29th 2014. What that means is that on that date, the Four Seasons lands were sold for US $32 million dollars.”

    Like

  • Is it US $32 million dollars ? …or US $60 million dollars or did someone make a US $28 million profit ?

    Like

  • @Northern Observer

    The question that Barbadians at home and in the diaspora would want answered is: when were the sales proceeds received and where did it go? Was it included in Barbados’ Net International Reserves at December 31, 2014? We are only being informed of the sale now by way of a newspaper report, not from the Government of Barbados via the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Tourism. The conveyance is over 3 years old…..

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    @Hants
    The Sunday Sun (I don’t subscribe so could only read the cover) says they were TWO conveyances covering the sale. The one shown on the BU Blog is for US$32, hence, I will “assume” the second is for US$28 and thus the $60 quoted by the Sun article. We know the listed sellers in one conveyance were Clearwater Bay and Paradise 888, I have no idea who they were in the second conveyance.

    It would be up to the accounting gurus within the relevant Ministries to report on the corresponding entries with their books.

    Like

  • When Mia was a lawyer to this project, was it not a private company? It was not that she was lawyer when the government stupidly injected itself into it using pensioners’ NIS funds…….a private bowl of incompetence and confusion.

    David Thompson, the political light weight that he was made a colossal error and the NIS contributors are going suffer for the dlp stupidity.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver March 4, 2018 at 2:20 PM #

    So….. you should note that the Deed or conveyance is dated December 29th 2014. What that means is that on that date, the Four Seasons lands were sold for US $32 million dollars.”(Quote)

    I am not a lawyer either, nor would I cross swords with a former attorney general. I am going on the common law as I understand it in England and Wales: until there is an exchange of contracts, there is no sale.
    Title deeds are exchanged on the sale of the property and the mortgage lender (bank, building society, etc, will hold on to the title deeds until the mortgage is repaid by the borrower).
    If it is a cash sale, and no lender, at the point of exchanging contracts the deeds are also exchanged. This is normally called the exchange of contract, which means the deal is then complete.
    From that moment the buyer is the new owner.

    Like

  • Barbadians need answers on this Four Season sale.

    How was the sale brokered? Was it done through the former executive chairmen of Paradise Limited Professor Avinash Persaud who was head hunted specifically for the task by the late Prime Minister David Thompson? Was the sale brokered after Professor Persaud left the Paradise organisation? Was the sale brokered before or after the IADB withdrew their funding for the restart of the Four Seasons project? Was the sale of the property advertised publicly, far and wide, locally and internationally as is the case with the Harlequin property at Merricks? Were bids for the property invited by open tender or was it put only to a select group of potential investors/buyers? Are there any finders’ fees involved for the party/parties who brokered the deal with Jada?

    These are questions that Barbadians need to have answered. Clearwater Bay is a government owned and taxpayer funded company which is party to the sale. Recall that a US$60 million guarantee was provided by Clearwater Bay through resolution of Parliament which was eventually called by Ansa Merchant Bank.

    What is the final cost to taxpayers for this? The net proceeds of the sale will be less than the US$60 million due to attorneys’ fees, duties etc.

    Is the Barbadian taxpayer burdened with a loss as a result of government having getting involved in a private sector project????

    Like

  • @Northern Observer

    The Paradise properties were sold for USD60 million, 32, 150 and 27,500. The liar Sinckler promised to have a debate on the matter knowing parliament is about to be dissolved.

    Like

  • Why the Rh Sinckler denied the sale when he knew it was a done deal in August last year when asked?

    Like

  • Note this matter was forced public when BU posted one of the conveyances last week received from a trusted source.

    https://wp.me/p43Aa-f1p

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    The source was still negotiating for access to BOTH conveyances. Or is it 3? LOL

    Somehow they have tied JADA to Pharliciple. It would be interesting to know if JADA or a JADA owned entity also owned any of

    a) Paradise Beach LLP;
    (b) Paradise Beach Limited;
    (c) Paradise 88 Ltd;
    (d) Eastern Resorts Limited, a company incorporated under the
    laws of England; and
    (e) Paradise 8 8 L.P, a company registered as an external company
    under the Companies Act,

    The flow would seem, subsequent to the Loan Guarantee (5 Tranches = US$60M) somebody(s) defaulted, hence reverting land ownership to the Guarantor [GoB] and ?????

    It has the appearance that somebody got squeezed. And debt was converted to equity.

    Like

  • Dr. Simple Simon

    @David March 4, 2018 at 5:22 PM “Why the Rh Sinckler denied the sale when he knew it was a done deal in August last year when asked?”

    David you should really ask his Sunday school teacher or his pastor.

    Like

  • Pingback: A Heather Cole Column – Where is the Money? | Barbados Underground

  • Pingback: JADA’s Secret Company (Pharliciple) Listed in the Database Paradise Papers – PARADISE GONE | Barbados Underground

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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