MONTEGO BAY, St James — The court has the task of deciding whether a man who was seen handing his neighbour’s missing wallet to a bank employee is a Good Samaritan or merely a thief trying to cover his tracks.

The accused appeared in the St James Parish Court on Wednesday before Judge Natiesha Fairclough-Hylton, facing a charge of simple larceny involving his neighbour. He is represented by attorney-at-law Michael Hemmings.

The court heard that earlier this year the complainant parked his motor vehicle in Content, St James. The following morning he discovered that his wallet — containing his bank card and other personal items — was missing.

He later proceeded to the bank to cancel the card. While there, he reportedly observed his neighbour entering the bank with the wallet. A bank representative conducted checks and the wallet was eventually returned to the complainant. However, he later realised that US$100 and $180,000 were missing.

The matter was reported to the police, leading to the accused man’s arrest and subsequent charge.

But on Wednesday, attorney Hemmings strongly pushed back against the allegations.

“It appears as though it does not pay to be a Good Samaritan these days, because my instructions differ entirely from the allegations that were read,” he said.

Hemmings argued that even if the allegations were accepted as presented, the prosecution would still struggle to prove the offence.

“The Crown could not satisfy the requisite elements of the offence to say that this man took monies from that man’s wallet as he claims,” the attorney said.

“I don’t know where the Crown is going with this because the elements of the offence cannot be proven in this case,” Hemmings asserted.

He urged the Crown to properly assess the file and take the necessary steps to prevent “wasting judicial time”.

In response, the clerk of court indicated that the case rests partly on circumstantial evidence and noted that the complainant had expressed interest in mediation.

Justice Fairclough-Hylton said a case management date would be set to allow the defence to review the Crown’s evidence and the clerk to speak with her witness, after which the court will determine how the matter will proceed.

The complainant, when given an opportunity to address the court, said he was at the bank to cancel his card when he saw his neighbour handing the wallet to a security officer, who later returned it to him.

“My wallet had my identification inside, so he would have known the wallet belonged to me because I am his upstairs neighbour,” the complainant told the court.

The judge then questioned why the wallet had been taken to the bank instead of being returned directly to the complainant.

Hemmings responded that his client first attempted to return the wallet at the complainant’s home but did not find him there. According to the attorney, his client then took the wallet to the bank before later being accused of stealing it.

The judge, seeking clarification, asked the complainant how he arrived at the conclusion that it was the accused who took the money. In responding that no one else could have done so, the complainant pointed out that the area is a dead-end road and people do not normally access the location.

However, when asked by the judge, he indicated that other individuals live in his yard. He did not provide a direct response when the judge further asked whether it was possible that those individuals could have taken the money.

The judge then instructed the clerk to assess the file and set the matter for case management on June 10, while extending the accused man’s bail.