Postal worker jailed 89 years for fraud

A FORMER postal worker who was convicted of fraudulently signing and cashing cheques belonging to dead pensioners, was yesterday sentenced to 89 years imprisonment by a San Fernando High Court judge. Tara Sankarsingh, 49, was ordered to serve five years for committing larceny by a public servant, and seven years on each of 12 counts of forgery. Justice Mark Mohammed ordered that the sentences run concurrently, so Sankarsingh will serve a total of seven years in jail. In passing sentence, Justice Mohammed said a message must be sent to others who may be tempted “to tinker with the public purse made up in many cases, from hard earned tax dollars.” He said the forgery of the pensioners signatures was part of a “well planned and executed scheme” which might have gone unnoticed if not for an unexpected audit conducted at the post office.

“People of this country reposed faith in your ability to handle with honesty a substantial sum of money and other stocks which were placed on your charge. You betrayed that trust in a very serious manner,” he told the accused. Sankarsingh, of Erin Road, Palo Seco, was found guilty by a nine-member jury of committing forgery with intent to defraud Government pension cheques each valued $356.15, and obtaining $4,395.10 by cashing the cheques. Assistant DPP Joan Honore-Paul, who led the State’s case, said the offences were committed between December 23, 1996 and January 24, 1997, while Sankarsingh was employed with the Ministry of Public Utilities’ Postal Service Division at Palo Seco.

Defence attorney Indra Ramoutar-Liverpool called four character witnesses, including Curtis Joseph, an administrative official at the church Sankarsingh attended. Joseph said Sankarsingh, whom he had known for 25 years, handled money for the church’s building project and was a signatory to the church’s Unit Trust account and there had never been any problems. On Wednesday, Justice Mohammed ruled that a motion to “arrest” the guilty verdict is a matter for the Court of Appeal. He gave his ruling after hearing submissions by the State and defence on a motion delivered on June 9 related to an allegation which arose during the trial.