An audit of the financial records of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) has uncovered serious irregularities, including the falsification of records, and it has recommended immediate transfers and a fraud investigation of several of the discrepancies, sources say.
An audit of SOCU, which is a branch of the Guyana Police Force (GPF), was ordered by Police Commissioner Leslie James in February following claims of grave mismanagement, which included the misuse of its operational fund.
The unit, initially set up to probe financial crimes and strengthening the country’s anti-money laundering architecture, had not been audited since its establishment in 2014.
SOCU has been engaged in major high-profile probes of former PPP/C government officials and transgressions at state agencies. The findings of the audit would be seen as a major embarrassment for the current government.
Based on the information provided to this newspaper, the GPF’s Audit Department, which conducted the investigation, focused on the years 2016 to 2019, during which time over $52 million is said to have been collected by SOCU from the Ministry of Public Security for the operational fund.
The fund is to be used for the payment of SOCU informants, the rental of vehicles for surveillance, the maintenance of the unit’s building, and basic administrative expenses, among other things.
Sources told Stabroek News that during the period under audit, several staff members received sums totalling millions of dollars and while it was claimed in most cases that the money was for intelligence gathering, there was no corroborating evidence. Further, the money paid out to the staff was not far off from what was paid out to informants/sources.
In one instance, the examination of payments of more than half a million dollars each to three ranks in one month in 2016 is said to have uncovered receipts that were backdated to make the payouts look legitimate.
Stabroek News was also informed that the auditors were hampered by the absence of receipts and money being used for unspecified purposes.
There is also evidence of unsigned entries in the financial records, while in one case an official has alleged that their signature was forged.
This newspaper was told that it was found that some of the listed expenditure was concocted. There are reportedly numerous cases where purchases were recorded but when the auditors checked with vendors, including a number of established businesses, it was discovered that SOCU collected quotations but never made the purchases.
Also highlighted were irregular transactions between SOCU and a number of businesses. Sources said the auditors found invoices that were duplicated or tampered with, fraudulent double entries, and false entries.
A sum of $10 million that was reportedly paid to an Alberttown business for car rental services raised red flags as the receipts provided to the auditors were said to be vague, while the owner of the business was described as being uncooperative.
One source called the recommendation of immediate transfers “a bit light” based on the findings and suggested that in the circumstances immediate dismissal would have been warranted as this would send a strong message to members of the GPF that wrongdoing would not be condoned.
According to the source, it is hoped that a fraud investigation would lead to the institution of criminal charges.
Based on what this newspaper was told, no one has been asked to repay any of the monies they were given from the operational fund.
Declined
The Police Commissioner had said on Monday that the audit report should be on his desk later this week. When contacted yesterday, he declined to say whether he was now in possession of it. “I am going to disclose whether I got it or not… through my PRO [Public Relations Officer],” he told Stabroek News.
In addition to the head of SOCU, Assistant Com-missioner Sydney James, more than a dozen persons are said to have provided statements to the auditors for the investigation, which was triggered after former SOCU adviser Dr Sam Sittlington voiced concerns about the grave mismanagement of the unit, particularly as it related to the spending of operational funds, and the arrangement for the storage of seized cash. His concerns were later confirmed by SOCU staff.
Sittlington, who was sacked by the UK government for establishing a local branch of his Ireland-based security company, had told this newspaper that tensions arose between him and the SOCU head, a former army intelligence officer, when he began to question the spending of funds set aside for the operation of SOCU and requested “certain information” late last year.
He said too that from his observations, items such as printers, ink, paper and toiletries, which are essential to the smooth functioning of the office and the comfort of those who worked there, were not available. Additionally, he said, investigators were not being given mobile phone credit and there was no internet available.
He said he managed to procure a printer for the office but added that for three months, there was no ink before he eventually managed to get the required funds from the British High Commission to purchase it.
SOCU officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, had also told this newspaper that in violation of anti-money laundering laws, seized cash was being kept at the unit and in some cases at the Guyana Police Force’s Finance Department. It was explained that the money ought to be in an interest bearing account. The staff said concerns over the state of affairs were raised on numerous occasions but nothing was done.
According to Sittlington, late last year he raised the issue with a senior police officer, who promised to take action, but nothing was done.
Concerns had been raised about the propriety of the force conducting the audit but Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan had dismissed them. Asked if he was comfortable with the police conducting the audit, he had said on March 9th, “Oh yes, at this stage, yes. I am very comfortable. That is what normally happens in the various departments if there [is] information about certain untoward developments; you generally put the policemen first. Of course, then the Auditor General can come in and he can come in at any time.”
