Manchester MC Fraud Trial | Defence questions authenticity of bank documents
Published:Saturday | September 28, 2019 | 12:00 AMTamara Bailey/Gleaner Writer
Mandeville, Manchester:
Representatives from a fifth financial institution were called to the witness stand in the multimillion-dollar Manchester Municipal Corporation fraud trial yesterday to speak on documents they prepared for the Financial Investigations Division (FID).
However, several questions were raised by the defence as to the authenticity of the documents as the original versions could not be accounted for.
The first witness from the bank said that she received a call in 2017 and commissioned a search of transaction records and vouchers in relation to former deputy superintendent of roads and works at the then Manchester Parish Council Sanja Elliott and his wife, Tasha-Gaye Goulbourne-Elliott, who are both facing charges in the case.
The bank representative said that 51 vouchers were requested from one account and 12 vouchers from another account, but the request could not be fulfilled.
The witness said that during her search, she discovered that the transaction records had been previously requested in 2016 from a compliance officer who once worked at the bank.
The defence objected on several occasions, cautioning that the witness could divulge prejudicial information and that the prosecution was seeking to illicit evidence from a document not yet admitted into evidence.
Presiding Judge Ann-Marie Grainger asked the defence why the witness shouldn’t be allowed to speak on certain matters, considering her role at the bank.
DOCUMENT ALTERATION
She later sought to clarify if there was any way the prosecution could question the witness without having her divulge information that could be prejudicial.
Earlier, the witness stated that the system used by the bank did not allow information to be altered or deleted unless there was an error upload.
She said that the deletion of any document was recorded by the system and documents deemed to be required for investigations or needed for a legal matter were stored in tamper-free bags and placed in a fireproof cabinet.
A second witness from the same institution was later called and spoke to a court order he received from the FID for documents relating to the accused aforementioned.
He said that he could not comply with the order sufficiently as the documents had already been requested and had been sent to the compliance office.
He, however, revealed later that he retrieved files from the cabinet in the compliance office and made copies.
He said that he was careful to remove the signature of the previous compliance officer by snipping (manually cutting) as she was no longer working there.
He said that he affixed his signature as he was the one preparing the document for submission.
The defence again brought up the issue of the prosecution taking evidence from documents not yet served and added that there was nothing to confirm that what the copies were made from were true copies.
The prosecution responded, stating that there was nothing to suggest that they were not documents from the bank.
With some documents bearing the original signature of the witness and others having copies of his signature, the defence sought clarification.
The witness revealed that copies of the documents were sent on different occasions.
Some documents were admitted into evidence.
The witness is expected to return to court on Monday to continue cross examination when the matter continues in the Porus court.