bank accounts with $500M frozen
By Shuntel Glasgow
Justice Gino Persaud yesterday refused an application by embattled Assistant Police Commissioner Calvin Brutus and his pregnant wife Adonika Aulder, made by their Attorney Earl Daniels for Brutus to accompany Aulder to the US for medical attention in view of revelations that there are 240 charges pending against him for money laundering and other serious financial crimes.
Among the disclosures, in an affidavit in response to Brutus’s application, was that the State through a High Court order had frozen some nine accounts held at Republic Bank, Demerara Bank and the New Building Society in the names of Brutus, his wife and their minor son Combined, those accounts hold $500 million accumulated over a period of one year.
IThe State, represented by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V Lall, Principal Legal Advisor Ronetta Sargent-Prince and State Counsel Thalia Thompson, Paneeta Persaud and Mohanie Sudama, forcefully opposed the application. The reasons and basis were explained in an affidavit sworn by Head of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) Fazil Karimbaksh.
Lall argued that Article 148 of the Constitution, upon which Brutus relied, citing that his right to freedom of movement had been restricted, was not an absolute right and was subject to numerous limitations. One such limitation was that public servants, including Brutus, were required to seek and obtain leave of their permanent secretaries before they could leave the jurisdiction.
Lall further stated that no request was made or approval obtained for Brutus to leave the country. The state argued that the application before the court was premature as Brutus had skipped the step of approaching the permanent secretary and the court agreed.
Daniels claimed that while SOCU had announced that it was investigating Brutus for money laundering and other serious financial crimes, his client was not notified. He said that Brutus learned about the investigation from posts made by several media outlets and SOCU had not made direct contact with Brutus. Daniels assured the court that his client would return to defend the allegations against him in the court of law once granted permission to leave Guyana.
The attorney further contended that Brutus possessed many assets in Guyana, including properties.
Karimbaksh in his response to Brutus’s application for the order indicated that while Brutus lives in police quarters, he and his wife had been evading the police’s attempt to make contact with him. The state said calls to Brutus’s phone were declined and Daniels responded that his client’s phone is active and functional.
The state acknowledged that Karimbaksh and Brutus are neighbours.
Justice Persaud then questioned why Brutus had not been arrested since according to the state he could not be reached. Brutus was present in court and through his attorney reiterated that at no point did the Guyana Police Force attempt to arrest him. Justice Persaud questioned what had barred the GPF from arresting Brutus and whether he returned home daily. The state responded that they did not see it necessary.
Brutus was requesting permission to leave Guyana from October 19 to 27. He was previously on 42 days of annual leave that expired on August 21 and he was subsequently sent on administrative leave to facilitate the investigation.
His lawyer contended that though Brutus’s accounts were frozen, he has many siblings and relatives in the US who could assist him during his short stay. In addition, while Brutus and his wife’s accounts are frozen, he still has access to his salary account.
The state further argued that Brutus and his wife provided no evidence whatsoever that the alleged medical treatment his wife sought was not available in Guyana or that there were special circumstances warranting their travel to the United States.
Justice Persaud then asked whether the medical services that the wife sought were not available in Guyana and Daniels contended that there should be no imposition on where medical treatment was sought. Daniels was questioned on whether the document he was about to present to the judge was attached to the application and he responded no. However, he had in his possession a document from a private hospital as evidence that the treatment that Brutus’s wife sought was not available in Guyana. Justice Persaud could not accept it from the bar table.
Brutus and his wife are the subject of an ongoing SOCU investigation linked to fraud and financial impropriety amounting to over $800 million under various legislation in Guyana including the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act, Cap. 10:11. SOCU has said that the investigation will yield over 240 charges.
Lall further argued that all these matters pointed to Brutus and his wife being flight risks, arguing that they may well abscond and not return given the 240 charges that will soon be laid against them. Further, the matter has garnered significant public interest given that there was no officer of the status of Brutus in recent history who had been the subject of an investigation involving over $800 million in offences against the laws of Guyana. The state contended that it was in the public interest that the applicants be refused permission to leave the jurisdiction given that their physical presence was required for the successful prosecution of the offences.
Dismissed
Justice Persaud dismissed the application and held that the applicants did not sufficiently establish that their constitutional rights under the provisions of Article 148 of the constitution were infringed.
Justice Persaud ruled that given the gravamen of the investigation, the 240 impending charges, the subject matter of these charges, that was $800 million and in balancing the public interest, the court was not minded to grant Brutus and his wife permission to leave the country.
Brutus and his wife were ordered to pay costs to each of the respondents in the sum of $250,000.
Earlier this week, Brutus had moved to the court against the Attorney General, the acting Commissioner of Police and others, arguing that he was being victimised and denied services including a restriction on his accounts.
An application lodged for Brutus also alleged that Cabinet had a role in him being sent on leave and recounted an appearance in court where he was threatened with a wanted bulletin if he did not show up at SOCU, which spearheaded the investigation. The affidavit also accused senior government officials of interference in the matter.
Brutus is seeking a number of declarations from the court including that the acting Commissioner of Police acted ultra vires on July 4 by transferring him from the position of Deputy Commissioner due to “political directives and improper administrative procedures”.
Also being sought by Brutus is a declaration that Cabinet acted ultra vires on July 11 when it instructed acting Commissioner of Police Clifton Hicken to send him on annual leave due to allegations of involvement in financial crimes.
Brutus is seeking a declaration that the rules of natural justice were violated as he was not afforded a fair opportunity to respond.
Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo on Thursday warned that the move to the court was self-destructive as the government has files on Brutus from when he oversaw the procurement system of the police force. “We will respond to the constitutional motion in court and since some charges were made, trust me, our affidavit to respond to those charges may not be beneficial to the particular individual because we will go into great detail about what our findings were in the procurement system … when he was heading the administration of the Police Force,” Jagdeo told a press conference.
He said that his PPP party was sending a signal to the public that it would not condone corruption.
On Wednesday SOCU said the matter was with the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the state representatives confirmed this in court yesterday and reiterated that the investigation was close to completion.
SOCU said: “Earlier this year, SOCU launched an investigation into certain activities of Assistant Commissioner Brutus and at the end of that investigation, based on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no criminal charges were recommended. Subsequently, based on critical information received by SOCU from the Financial Intelligence Unit, a new and more expansive investigation was conducted by SOCU. That investigation was concluded on 2024-10-01, and all the relevant files were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for review, advice and further action.”
SOCU made no public announcement about its first finding despite the importance of its probe. It also did not announce an expanded investigation. Only a series of stories by Stabroek News in recent weeks has prompted responses from SOCU.
