PORUS, Manchester — Prosecutors in the Manchester Municipal Corporation fraud trial yesterday dismissed accusations by the defence of misconduct as “unfounded”, and went on to paint a picture of “arbitrary” disbursements of millions of dollars of public funds “for work not done”.

The Crown offered detailed explanations, assisted by PowerPoint presentations, that sought to dispel the defence’s claims of its abuse of process, involvement in witness tampering, failure to disclose evidentiary material, among other shortcomings.

The prosecution cast doubt on the allegations, suggesting that at the point of which these acts were allegedly committed, there were available remedies in law that could have addressed them. The prosecutors said they found defence counsel’s claims to be “unfounded assertions, throwing words around and [making] wholesale allegations”.

Witness tampering, “glaring misconduct” and abuse of process were among the charges laid at the feet of the prosecution by the defence on Wednesday, who had asked Parish Judge Ann Marie Grainger to stop the trial in light of the serious nature of the allegations.

Since the start of the week, the five attorneys representing eight defendants charged in an alleged conspiracy to defraud the corporation of $400 million of public funds, have been presenting no-case submissions on behalf of their clients inside the Porus courthouse.

Yesterday, the Crown denied the allegations, and in relation to the accusation of witness tampering, the prosecutors said that the word to the witness in question was “to speak the truth” and that this was corroborated by the witness during testimony. The Crown further asserted that “no question was asked [by the defence] of the witness if he was threatened”.

Judge Grainger, however, asked the prosecutors to address the claim by defence counsel Norman Godfrey that the witness had changed his testimony to fit the indictment.

The Crown counsel’s response was that the witness was being questioned about a cheque and asked of the court: “How could that count not be on the indictment when the evidence was there?”

She went further to assert that, at the time, the evidence went unchallenged by the defence.

At the close of yesterday’s proceedings, the Crown began submissions outlining how Sanja Elliott, the former deputy superintendent of road and works at the corporation, masterminded a scheme to fleece the municipality of millions of dollars through the use of fictitious invoices to pay “contractors” for work that was never done.

The other defendants in the matter are former corporation employees David Harris and Kendale Roberts, Elliott’s wife Tashagaye, his employee Dwayne Sibblies, his parents Myrtle and Edwardo, and former commercial bank teller Radcliffe McLean.

The Crown will continue its submissions today.