Last night, we showed you what Dean Barrow, the attorney hired by Caribbean International Brewery Company Limited, had to say about the pending fight in court.
The beer company's principals hope Barrow can convince a Magistrate or a judge to order the police and the Financial Intelligent Unit to return their 3.1 million dollars in cash. Viewers will remember that a multi-agency team of law enforcement officers seized those funds last week during a 2-day raid of the company's Carmelita Village factory and compound.
The company insists that the raid was malicious and that the authorities had no right to confiscate their money, which was stored in a safe. They insist that money is legitimate proceeds of their September sales. The FIU isn't so sure about that though. They want to keep that money under lockdown for three months to investigate and assure themselves that the funds aren't the proceeds of crime. As we told you, the Beer company's attorney insists that if the Belizean authorities oblige the court to grant that 3-month detention, their business will fold.
Today, Senior Counsel Dean Barrow and his associate colleague were before Magistrate Deborah Rogers, attempting to resist arguments from FIU that the money should remain under lock and key.
Attorney Janelle Thomas-Shorter represented the FIU. She submitted to the court that, at this time, they have reason to believe that this money was the proceeds of human trafficking and tax evasion. She added that the law enforcement authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect that several defendants intended to use the funds for human trafficking or money laundering. Finally, she told the court that the FIU believes that if the money is released, it will be disposed of by the owners, which would defeat the purpose of their investigation into its source.
She then called one of the officers who participated in last week's raid to testify before the court. He provided the court with extended details about what happened during the raid. He also told the court that inside one of the two safes on the compound, he found passports belonging to several employees. The officer inquired why it was that these important documents were being kept from the employees. That's when he was told that they were only being stored inside for safekeeping so that they couldn't be stolen. He told the court that several of the employees were taken into custody because he suspected that they were victims of human trafficking.
The Court spent the rest of the afternoon's session listening to the testimony of this officer who was a part of the raid. Magistrate Rogers then adjourned the case until next Monday for continuation.
Shortly after the hearing concluded, 7News spoke with Dean Barrow outside of the courtroom, and we asked him specifically about the allegations that the authorities have made against his clients. Here's what he had to say about the submissions from the FIU that the authorities have reason to suspect that human trafficking, money laundering, and tax evasion have occurred:
Dean Barrow, SC, Attorney for CIB
"First of all, that's a belated allegation. Notice that they went by way of a warrant that authorize them to execute a search in connection with trafficking in persons. They have brought charges against various individuals for working without a valid working permit, immigration matters for which the fines are something like a thousand dollars. It is just an application for the detention of the money was based on that. It is just today now we hear there is all of a sudden, this allegation that the monies may have been tainted by money laundering activities, or may have been infected by tax evasions. That is completely new and I, my own position is that it is new because it is an afterthought designed merely to support the application to hold on to the money. Without those new belated allegations, I don't think they would have had much of a case. How on earth would you connect three million plus dollars with offenses that attract, offenses for which the fines are in the region of a thousand dollars. There is a huge disconnect, but now, they have introduced these new elements, insist by way of a bid to shore up the case that was first alleged, which case in my view didn't amount to very much."
Earlier in the hearing, Barrow was attempting to convince Magistrate Rogers that the FIU's application to detain the money for three additional months was out of time and not properly before her courtroom. He tried to convince the Magistrate that since it was the Police and not the FIU who originally seized the funds, the police - and not the FIU - has to apply.
The FIU's attorney made counterarguments on that issue, and after a short adjournment, the Magistrate disagreed with Barrow and allowed the FIU to bring their application for the continued seizure of the money.
Here's our conversation with Barrow on that topic:
Dean Barrow, SC, Attorney for CIB
"Remember I took 2 preliminary objections which the magistrate didn't uphold and of course I disagree with her, but that's her right. That's what's it's about, you go to court and the magistrate can do what she thinks is correct and of course we have the option of going higher and if things continue in this way, that's exactly what will happen. The problem is that in the meantime these people are without the wherewithal they need to continue their operations, but dealing with the preliminary objections, in my submission it is not the FIU that should have moved this application, because when you look at the money laundering act and the section under which they are coming, it is clear that it is the police officer that seize the money, that can then move for its continue detention."
"The magistrate seems to have become confused. It is true that there are police officers attached to the FIU, but those weren't the ones that seize the money. You heard the evidence of Inspector, he was the one that lead the operation, he was the one that detained and counted the money. Afterwards he gave it over to the custody of the FIU, but that's not as it were the foundation for the originating application for continued seizure. The basis for that is that the person that seized it or the branch of law enforcement that seize it must show that it had a reasonable suspicion, that allow the seizure of the money and must then convince the court that it is necessary to hold on to the money so that investigations might be completed. How the FIU gets into it when you look at the language in the appropriate section of the money laundering act absolutely defeats me."
This evening, we contacted Kent Claire, the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit, for comment on these allegations.
Via email, he told us, quote, "The FIU's focus and mandate is not just on interdicting money laundering and other financial crimes. It also supports the business sector. Consequently, great care is taken to ensure that the fundamental rights of businesses are preserved, including their ability to operate and continue as a going concern. We assure the company and the public that the investigative process will exclude any unnecessary delays. We look forward to a collaborative engagement with the company and its officers." End quote.
