The lawyer for Guyanese businessman Ed Ahmad, who has been indicted in New York over a US$50M mortgage fraud, is looking to stall the May 21 commencement of his trial in order to address a “complicated, recently emergent issue.”
Steven R. Kartagener in a letter to Judge Dora Irizarry requested that the court conference scheduled for May 21 be adjourned for about a month for him to “address a complicated, recently emergent issue, and perhaps file a motion with respect to that issue.”
“The concomitant press of other matters makes it impossible for me to file my papers prior to that date. I consent to the exclusion of time until the next scheduled trial date,” the lawyer said in the letter seen by this newspaper.
It is not clear if the judge will grant the extension neither is there any record that the jury was selected on May 16 as was scheduled.
Ahmad was detained last July on charges that he operated a US$50 million mortgage-fraud scheme in Queens. He faces a maximum of 30 years in jail. He is presently on US$2.5 million bail.
Ahmad’s case has attracted great interest in Guyana because of his close ties to former President Bharrat Jagdeo. Ahmad had shipped a container of goods to Jagdeo at State House and many questions were asked about this.
Three alleged co-conspirators — Ahmad’s cricket friends and employees — were also indicted in an associated case last year, court records show.
The report said that Queens-based brokers Qayaam Farrouq, Mohamed Gurmohamed and Guyanese cricketer Steve Massiah were charged with defrauding banks and mortgage companies by falsifying mortgage- loan applications to make borrowers appear more creditworthy to financial institutions, court records show.
The matter against Massiah has since been dismissed without prejudice.
Ahmad’s relationship with Meeks came under intense scrutiny in 2010 after the Democratic congressman disclosed that he had received the US$40,000 payment from Ahmad in 2007. Meeks only disclosed the payment after Ahmad was questioned by the FBI last year. He claims he repaid the money following the questioning.
The House ethics committee is probing whether the payment was a gift and not a loan, as the congressman has maintained.
