The $400-million Manchester Municipal Corporation fraud trial ended on Friday, May 15, 2020 with the conviction of main accused 35-year-old Sanja Elliott, the corporation’s former deputy superintendent of road and works; his wife, Tashagaye Elliott Goulbourne; two former employees of the corporation, David Harris, secretary/manager and acting chief executive officer and Kendale Roberts, temporary works overseer; as well as Dwayne Sibblies, a former employee of Sanja Elliott.

Those freed at the end of the trial were Sanja Elliott’s mother, Myrtle Elliott, and former commercial bank teller Radcliff McLean.

In January, Sanja Elliott’s father and husband of Myrtle Elliott, Elwardo, was the first to be freed.

The charges included conspiracy to defraud, engaging in a transaction that involves criminal property, several counts of possession of criminal property, facilitating the retention of criminal property, obtaining money by means of false pretences, causing money to be paid out by forged documents, an act of corruption, and uttering forged documents.

The Jamaica Observer continues its publication of the Crown’s closing submission — prepared by prosecutors Channa Ormsby, Patrice Hickson, and Jamelia Simpson — and presented to the court in the case against the seven.

The defence’s case – ‘the handwriting on the wall’

[10] In the book of Daniel, Daniel recounts that after King Nebuchadnezzar had died, his grandson Belshazzar was king over the province of Babylon. Babylon was a fortified city and the Medes and Persians encamped around its walls seeking to conquer Babylon. The king was sure that Babylon, due to its massive walls and gates, could not be conquered. In light of this confidence, he had a feast with thousands of his lords and concubines. He then sent for the sacred vessels of gold and silver which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple of the true and living God in Jerusalem and when they were brought, he along with his wives and concubines drank wine from them and so defiled the vessels. In that same hour the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote opposite the lamp stand on the plaster of the wall on the king’s palace the following words, “MENE MENE TENKEL UPHARSIN”.

Daniel interpreted the Aramaic words to mean that God has numbered your kingdom and finished it, you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

[11] In relation to the defence from the defendants we submit that the conspiracy to defraud the Manchester Parish Council is now finished and brought to light; the answer given by each defendant has been weighed in the balance and is found wanting. The hard-earned money of Jamaican taxpayers can be likened to the vessels of gold and silver that Belshazzar drank from; Sanja Elliot and his co-conspirators conspired to defraud taxpayers’ hard-earned money and he and his wife lived lavishly as a result, and at the helm of crisis, his wife and mother assisted him in an effort to retain the spoils.

[12] We submit that the hand has written on the wall and the defences have been weighed in the balance by the scale of justice and found wanting.

DAVID HARRIS

[13] By way of summary, in his unsworn statement Mr Harris made a bare denial and outlined his good character. He speaks to serving the Manchester Parish Council for 14 ½ years, having resigned in February 2017. He spoke of his achievements whilst at the council, most notably under government reform. He was instrumental in converting from a manual accounting system to a computerised system in 2004, that this system was used as a pilot by the Ministry of Local Government in all other parish councils in Jamaica, and that he sat as a part of the Local Government Reform Committee.

That he was not the only person authorised to sign the cheques and he detailed the process by which a cheque is generated and authorised. He stated that, “sometimes you have the mayor or superintendent sending messages asking if payment will be made available for persons who work has been given out to…that the council is an autonomous body that decides how work is allocated in the parish but we in the accounts department have to ensure that sufficient funding is available in the bank account before payments are disbursed, as it is a breach of regulation to run an overdraft on a government bank account”.

He also indicated that he fully cooperated with the officers from the contractor general and MOCA with whatever information they wanted from the council. He also indicated that his case could have been assisted “by payment vouchers, cheques and payment register used by the cashiers for persons collecting cheques at the council. These payment vouchers and cheques would indicate that I am not the only signatory on the account”.

Refuting David Harris’ Unsworn Statement

[14] Firstly, there is no dispute that Mr Harris is not the sole signatory to the council’s bank accounts or authorised officer to certify documents. In fact, there are payment vouchers in evidence that Mr Harris did not sign. However, the Crown has provided the context within which Mr Harris signed the cheques that his signature appeared on, that is, him being a part of a conspiracy to defraud the council. By virtue of these cheques that he signed, individuals purporting to be contractors were paid monies from the council’s account. The court heard the evidence of the several witnesses as to fact.

[15] Throughout the trial there have been remarks and outbursts as to an elusive alternative context that the messages between Sanja Elliott and David Harris are to be given. However, in the unsworn statements, no alternative context was given, even though the full conversations — both binary and readable formats — were provided to the defence. The court ought not to apply any other context than the one that is apparent in the messages. David Harris has not denied ownership of the cellphone; to the contrary, he recounts how according to him he came to hand over the phone to the police.

[16] David Harris’ experience in accounting as well as the fact that he sat on the Finance Committee made him instrumental to the conspiracy. The court has seen the evidence in text messages where he is directing how much should be paid from each account on each day. On the face of it, it might appear innocent but when stacked against the evidence of the persons who are referred to in the massages, and who have testified that they were not bona fide contractors, Mr Harris has been found wanting. There were also instances where it was Mr Harris who was giving out names of persons who have testified that they performed no work. Importantly, this is outside of Mr Harris’ functions. For example, the message below taken from exhibit 225:

David Harris to Sanja Elliott

• Tomorrow – Racquel – 370, Mervin – 300, Kevin 300, Granville 360, for Friday PRF – Aldane – 400, Mervin – 400, Natasha – 400, Dwayne – 400 will do some more beauty Friday, but these are the names and the dates.

[17] In relation to any claims of non-disclosure raised by Mr Harris, the Crown reiterates and stands by our submissions that all that is in the possession of the Crown has been disclosed.

[18] Additionally, Mr Harris has indicated that it was he who cooperated with the Office of the Contractor General and MOCA and provided them with the information requested. It is clear from the evidence that some documents were returned to the council. Consequently, if there were additional documentation not in the possession of the Crown, it is the defences’ responsibility to subpoena those documents. The court cannot be asked to speculate on matters not in evidence.

[19] Moreover, Mr Harris has stated in his unsworn statement that the reason he needed such documents was to show that he was not the only signatory on the account. The Crown agrees with that assertion as that was the evidence adduced in the trial. The Crown submits that the unsworn statement is wanting and as such the case against David Harris must be decided on a return to the Crown’s case.

MYRTLE ELLIOTT

[20] Mrs Myrtle Elliott admitted to making the withdrawals of $2 million from a First Global account she holds jointly with her son, Sanja Elliott. She however indicated that $1,500,000 went towards securing the bail of Dwayne Sibblies and the balance paid for legal fees.

Refuting Myrtle Elliotts’ Unsworn Statement

[21] The Crown submits that this is not a credible argument when examined with the other state of affairs where millions of dollars were being withdrawn from the account by Mr Elliott and Mrs Goulbourne-Elliott. The documentary evidence is before the court, detailing the dissipation of the accounts. In the main, the entire family was assisting in getting as much out of the accounts as possible — to the tune of over $14 million merely over a three-month period. The manner and pattern of the withdrawals conducted by Mrs Elliott show that she attended the bank on multiples dates — the 28th of June 2016 – $1,000,000.00; 29th of June 2016 – $500,000.00 and a manager’s cheque payable to G Ricketts; and on the 8th of July 2016 – $200,000.00.

[22] In deciding whether any weight should be attached to this assertion of payment of legal fees, we invite the court to consider, given that it was allegedly for attorney’s fee, why not a manager’s cheque? The evidence shows that on the same day of this large cash withdrawal Mrs Myrtle Elliott also conducted a transaction for a manager’s cheque in the amount of $500,000. Given the amount claimed for securing Mr Sibblies’ bail and having regard to the procedure to process bail at the parish court, isn’t it more plausible that either a manager’s cheque or the bank account would have been used as collateral? We therefore ask that the court reject this assertion and return to the Crown’s case.

RADCLIFF MCLEAN

[23] Mr McLean has made a bare denial in his defence. In summary, he worked at the Bank of Nova Scotia from 2006 – 2018. He worked at the King’s Street branch from 2006 – 2008, then between 2008 and 2018 he worked between the two branches in Mandeville. That he has done nothing wrong, that he does not know why he has been charged as he was not the only teller that processed Manchester Parish Council transactions. That his supervisor checks his transactions when he leaves for lunch and at the end of the business day, and there have never been any irregularities noted against him.

Refuting Radcliff McLean’s Unsworn Statement

[24] We ask the court to return to the Crown’s case in relation to Mr McLean. The fact of no irregularities being noted against Mr McLean’s name at the time when the cheques were encashed is immaterial. A supervisor reviewing cheques at the end of the business day or at lunch time would not be instructive on the issue of the identity of the person who in fact encashed the cheque. By way of illustration, according to Melissa McFarlane, outside of the day when Mr McLean called her out of the line and processed a cheque for her, that she did not work for, she had not gone back to the bank and encashed any other cheques. However, cheques signed “M McFarlane” were subsequently processed by Mr McLean on several occasions and often in close succession. When a supervisor reviews any such instrument there would be no irregularity noted, as the cheque, on the face of it, would have appeared to have been properly endorsed.

[25] There is nothing from the unsworn statement to address the day Mr McLean, according to the Crown’s case, called Miss McFarlane from the back of the line. Does he know her? The witness has said she did not know him before that day. What were the circumstances if alternative to the Crown’s case behind this interaction on this day?

[26] What of exhibit 169 in the name Tyrone Merchant which was processed by Mr McLean and signed “D Sibbles”? On the same day, Mr McLean also processed exhibit 171 in the name Tyrone Merchant but which did not bear his signature. What of third-party cheques? Was Miss Goppal being untruthful when she said that the bank does not encash third-party cheques? What of Natasha Heron, Tiana Baker and Tamesha Whittaker whose evidence are all consistent with Melissa McFarlane and Tyrone Merchant, who all testified that they did not negotiate the cheques processed by Mr Mclean?

[27] In light of the absence of any defence and the unanswered questions above, the court must return to Crown’s case in order to come to its verdict, as the stated defence of Mr Radcliff McLean is woefully wanting.

TOMORROW: The Crown rubbishes Sanja Elliott’s defence