KINGSTON, Jamaica — Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels on Friday questioned why the prosecution in the Petrojam fraud trial will be seeking to introduce an exhibit dated January 2022, when the matter being tried is on the basis of false travel claims that were allegedly made between 2016 and 2018.

At the centre of the trial are two former officials of Petrojam, Perceval Singh and Floyd Grindley, the former chairman and general manager respectively.

Singh is accused of submitting claims for overseas travels he never undertook, while Grindley is alleged to have supported the former chairman in having those claims processed. The claims amounted to US$73,620.

Samuels, who is Singh’s attorney, expressed concern that his client is being surveilled beyond the period on the indictment.

The prosecution explained that although the document has a 2022 date, it contains screenshot evidence of information which was generated during the 2016 to 2018 period.

“I do not see a prejudice to the accused,” prosecutor and Queen’s Counsel Carolyn Hay stated.

She continued: “It spans activities from 2016 to 2018 but the way the statement has been written suggests that the request was made for that period but the screenshots of the results include checks up to a date in 2022. We are only concerned with the period of the indictment and the statement has come this way.”

Parish Court trial judge, Maxine Ellis, sought to assure Samuels no one is tracking the accused.

“Information has come in because a request was made but the Crown’s case is not tracking anyone here. Nobody is following you up; no Central Intelligence Agency, no Federal Bureau of Investigations, and certainly no other police. It is just a matter of request. I submitted a case this week and on the records, it showed the period beyond where the funds were supposed to have been lodged in an account.

“The period was up to when the funds were depleted. It was relevant because it showed how the person dealt with the money and in dealing with the money in that way, it was different from how the person dealt with money before the sum of money in question was lodged. It became relevant because the person never spent money like that before. When the money was done, it was back to normal spending.”

The trial was adjourned until November 21 as was agreed by both prosecution and defence teams.