London bank account

FORMER prime minister Basdeo Panday spent last night at the Maximum Security Prison in Arouca after he was sentenced to two years with hard labour yesterday for failing to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission.

But Panday has not gone into strange surroundings. Last year, he spent seven days at the

Maximum Security Prison when he refused to accept bail after he was charged with corruptly receiving 25,000 pounds sterling from businessman Ish Galbaransingh and former government minister Carlos John.

Panday protested the high bail of $750,000. But he was persuaded to change his mind after seven days at the country’s newest prison. He left Port-of-Spain Magistrates’ Court at 1.45 pm yesterday and was taken under tight security by members of the Guard and Emergency Branch (GEB) to the prison. This was after his wife Oma paid him a visit in the cell area of the court house. Oma missed the six days of the trial and yesterday’s verdict and sentencing by Chief Magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls.

Newsday learnt prison officials made Panday very comfortable on his return to the Maximum Security Prison yesterday afternoon.

He went straight to jail because no application for bail was made for him in the High Court.

Newsday learnt last night that the defence team plans on filing the application some time today.

Panday, 73, the chair man of the United National Congress (UNC), stood still, but managed a smile as Mc Nicolls found him guilty of knowingly failing to declare his London bank account to the Integrity Commission for the years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Mc Nicolls ordered that Panday pay the maximum fine of $20,000 on each of the three charges. In default, Panday is to serve three years in prison. The former prime minister was also ordered to serve two years in jail on each charge. These sentences are to run concurrently. Additionally, Panday is to pay to the State the sum of 159,600.35 pounds sterling (TT $1.6 million) which represents monies in the

London account at the end of 1997, 1998, and 1999. Failure to pay this amount to the State will result in the State forfeiting property belonging to Panday.

Desmond Allum SC, one of the lawyers representing Panday, gave oral notice of appeal and asked for bail for his client. Lead prosecutor British Queen’s Counsel Sir Timothy Cassel, had no objections to bail, but said this was a matter for the Chief Magistrate.

But the Chief Magistrate refused to grant bail to the Leader of the Opposition. Panday, with his head bent, was led away by the police to the cell area of the Portof-Spain Magistrates’ Court.

Tears came to the eyes of his daughter Mikela and FIFA vice president Austin “Jack” Warner, one of the deputy political leaders of the UNC.

The court was packed with relatives of the former prime minister and many of his political colleagues.

But noticeably absent was Panday’s wife Oma, with whom he shared the London bank account.

Among those in court were Wade Mark, Dr Tim Gopeesingh, Panday’s brother Subhas, Dr Roodal Moonilal, Harry Partap, Vasant Bharath, Orlando Nagessar, Jennifer Jones-Kernahan, and Dr Rupert Griffith.

Mc Nicolls kept the court waiting until his appearance at 10.06 am. In his judgment, Mc Nicolls said he was impressed with the straightforward manner in which the prosecution witnesses testified.

He said they were not discredited in any way under crossexamination and he accepted them as witnesses of truth.

But the story was different when Mc Nicolls reviewed the testimony of Panday and CLICO chairman Lawrence Duprey. He said Duprey did not help Panday’s case and that his testimony with regard to the financial aid to Panday’s daughters was highly suspicious and ought to be rejected as being untruthful.

Mc Nicolls said he did not believe Panday when the former PM said he did not consider the money in the London account to be his and hence his reason for not disclosing it.

He found that the continued use of Mrs Panday’s maiden name and her parents’ address in Marabella where the bank statements were sent was a deliberate attempt to conceal the account.

The Chief Magistrate added, “I also inferred that the defendant knowingly withheld declaring the account because it was in his name, it contained money for the benefit of his wife and children, and must have known it had to be declared. His own admission was that he was responsible financially for his wife and children.”

Mc Nicolls found it incredible to think that Mrs Panday would have withheld telling her husband about the scholarship money from Duprey if indeed it was given for that reason because of his limited salary.

“If Mr Duprey was speaking the truth that it was financial assistance which adds up to a gift, then it was all the more reason why the defendant would want to deliberately withhold disclosing the account because it was given by a large businessman to the prime minister’s family and the consequences that would flow from such a transaction,” he added.

Mc Nicolls ended, “The manner in which the defendant gave his testimony, both in evidence-in-chief and under cross-examination and his demeanour in the witness box left me with no alternative but to conclude that he was not being truthful about his dealings with the accounts.”