A former National Commercial Bank (NCB) employee, who was in 2009 charged along with her nephew for conspiracy to defraud Wisynco Group Limited of $250,000, last week had her suit seeking to claim more than $10 million in damages from her former bosses thrown out by the Supreme Court and has been ordered to foot the bank’s legal fees in the matter.

The woman, who was acquitted by the parish court in November 2011 on the basis that no further evidence was offered against her, had brought the legal action contending that the bank had falsely imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted her. The former customer service representative argued that, “the malicious prosecution by the defendant (NCB) has caused her serious loss, damage, humiliation, injury to her reputation, character and integrity and put her to considerable expense and embarrassment”.

As such she sought to claim special damages in the amount of $10,499,918 (and continuing) to include attorneys’ fees for a bail application in the Half-Way-Tree Resident Magistrate’s Court, attorneys’ fees for an appearance post bail application in the Half-Way-Tree Resident Magistrate’s Court, loss of two cellular phones and loss of earnings for seven years and continuance since February 2009 at $19,275.97 per month and continuing.

She further sought: damages for malicious prosecution; damages for loss of future earnings; attorneys’ costs on issue in the sum of $10,000; court costs in the amount of $5,000; and interest on special and general damages pursuant to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

But Supreme Court Judge Justice Kirk Anderson, in dismissing the entire claim, said the woman “had not proven that (NCB) had falsely imprisoned her nor has she proven that the defendant had maliciously prosecuted her”.

“I further find that the claimant was lawfully imprisoned by the police who had reasonable or probable cause to do so. I am of the view that the claimant was prosecuted by the police who had reasonable and probable cause to so act. I am also of the view that the prosecution was conducted in the absence of malice and that it was lawfully conducted, albeit that the criminal case against the claimant was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution,” Justice Anderson stated.

“I would add that in the circumstances, the court has no need to consider, nor make a determination of damages, including exemplary damages, if any, payable to the claimant, since damages would flow from a finding that the defendant was liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the claimant,” he said.

As such, the court ordered that the woman’s claim is “in its entirety, denied” and awarded the costs of the claim to NCB, ordering that “such costs shall be taxed, if not sooner agreed”, meaning that the bank can have the woman pay its legal fees incurred during the matter.

The charges were laid following a 2009 incident in which the woman posted to her nephew’s account a cheque for $250,000 drawn on the account of the Wisynco Group and made payable to Violence Prevention Alliance. According to the evidence of the manager of the bank’s Fraud Prevention Unit, “the cheque bore no endorsements or any indication of any other person to whom the proceeds were to be directed to other than the named payee, Violence Prevention Alliance.”

“This suggests that the cheque was negotiated in contravention of the bank’s processes and was likely indicative of fraudulent activity,” he said in a statement. He also said that on the day of the arrest of the woman’s nephew when he visited the bank with the police in tow, the woman approached ‘and started frantically, stating that she did not know [the arrested man, her nephew] and that he was just a customer of the bank and that she did not know him otherwise”.

“I asked why she was offering this information when she was not asked. She stated that she did so because she saw him enter the bank with the police and thought that something was wrong,” the Fraud Prevention Unit manager said.

He said when the woman was asked about the cheque in favour of Violence Prevention Alliance that she had deposited to her nephew’s account and why she had done so when obviously it was not intended for that account, “She stated that she thought it was a ‘trading account’ that he had and she knew him to be associated with some inner-city programme. I also asked her why the cheque was not endorsed at all. She only informed me that she had called Wisynco Group Limited to verify the cheque. However, when asked why she would be verifying the payee of the cheque when Violence Prevention was clearly marked on its face, she could give no answer,” he said.

The Fraud Prevention Unit manager further said when he visited Wisynco Group Limited and spoke with two of the directors, both confirmed that the cheque for $250,000 in favour of Violence Prevention Alliance was in fact forged. He said his investigations revealed other fraudulent cheques in their account.

NCB had to compensate Wisynco Group Limited the sum of $250,000 and all other sums that were deemed to be fraudulently deducted from their account. Violence Prevention Alliance also confirmed that the cheque in the sum of $250,000 was never received by them, the court was told.