Minister of Communities Ronald Bulkan, in his private capacity, and his brother, Rustum Bulkan, are suing the Bank of Guyana (GoG) and its Governor Dr. Gobind Ganga for at least $90 million for alleged misfeasance in public office, deceit, breach of statutory duty, and negligence.
According to court documents seen by Stabroek News, the suit is related to the alleged failure by the BoG to investigate a suspicious deposit made into the account of Precision Woodworking Ltd, of which the Bulkans, named in the suit as first and second claimants, are shareholders. The company went into receivership on 29th June, 2011.
The suit, filed 23rd December, 2019, is aimed at exonerating the claimants of any taint of criminality which they say they were exposed to Ganga and the BoG are named as the first and second defendants, respectively.
The claimants state that on 16th June 2011, an unauthorised, disclaimed, suspicious and unlawful deposit of $81, 068, 617, which they recognised as having been made in breach of the Anti-Money Laundering, Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, was deposited into account number 355-733-8, which was held by the company, at the Water Street branch of Republic Bank Limited (RBL).
During this time, the claimants say they were the only authorised signatories to the account.
They argue that between 11th March, 2013 and 22nd December, 2017, several letters, which invited Ganga to investigate the deposit, were written to Ganga, RBL, Finance Minister Winston Jordan, the Minister of Legal Affairs and Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams, S.C., and the law firm of de Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karran in relation to the deposit.
The invitation, the claimants say, was aimed at clearing, and guarding their name, and the businesses’ goodwill, against any perception of money laundering, which could be detrimental to the claimants as businessmen. The claimants also noted that the deposit exposed them to accusations of involvement in, or facilitation of money laundering, especially Ronald Bulkan, who has served as Minister of Communities since 2015.
The claimants said they first wrote Ganga on 25th July 2014, but claimed that he abdicated his statutory obligations when he, in a letter dated 23rd September, 2014, responded by saying that the “matter is engaging the attention of the Court”, and that the “Bank of Guyana will be guided by the Court’s decision.”
The claimants note in the document that they were not previously parties to any action related to the deposit. As a result, they are alleging that Ganga seemingly willfully ignored their “exhortations” to investigate the deposit.
The claimants also said that a defiant and strongly worded letter dated 16th September, 2016 was sent to the BoG, in which the conduct of Ganga was protested.
The Bulkans say, however, that both Ganga and the Bank, “continued to arbitrarily and whimsically deny the deposit being made,” by letter dated 16th September 2016, to the Attorney General and former counsel for the claimants, Nigel Hughes, “and dismissively discounted the claimants’ suspicion of criminality without any suggestion of an intention to take action.”
Specifically, the claimants argue, the BoG said “there was therefore no evidence to suggest that the sum in question was deposited into PWL’s Account,” thereby willfully, dishonestly, and in bad faith, misrepresenting that the deposit was not made.
The claimants alleged that it was Ganga’s and the bank’s intention to trick them into a belief that the deposit was not made, and an abandonment of an investigation into the truth.
They also argue that it is reasonable to infer that Ganga was aware of the deposit, and that this is the reason for the dismissive content and tone of his 23rd December letter, and his resort to the banking concept of “provision”, intended to exculpate the depositor and or RBL of the deposit, criminal wrongdoing, thwart the investigation, and mislead the Financial Intelligence Unit.
Negligence
The claimants further argue that Ganga had a duty of care, conferred by the letter dated 25th July 2014, to investigate the suspicious transaction, and that the duty was broken when he failed to investigate, or failed to detect the deposit.
Breach of Statutory Duty
The claimants also argue that sections 11 and 28 of the Bank of Guyana Act placed a statutory duty of supervision on BoG regarding abnormal or suspicious transactions, and that the statutory duty was breached through its abdication of that duty, as reflected in the letter of 23rd September 2014, and a 22nd December 2017 correspondence to the AG.
Deceit
The claimants also contend that the defendants have also been deceitful as they allegedly willfully and intentionally misrepresented that no deposit was made to the company’s account on 16th June 2011.
Misfeasance in public office
Flowing from their claims that Ganga acted dishonestly, and that he did not act in good faith, as allegedly indicated by his failure to withdraw persistent denials that the deposit existed, even after being made aware of same, the claimants argue that Ganga is liable for misfeasance in public office.
As a result, the Bulkans are claiming damages in excess of $10 million for deceit, damages in excess of $10 million for misfeasance in public office, and damages in excess of $10 million for negligence in failing to act in accordance with their the statutory duty.
The claimants are also claiming damages in excess of $10 million for a further breach of statutory duty, and damages in excess of $50 million for breach of statutory duty under sections 11 and 38 of the Bank of Guyana Act, along with aggravated or exemplary damages, and substantial and significant costs.
