Woman ordered to refund dad after selling shares, pocketing $50m

A woman who secretly sold her father’s shares, which they had in a joint investment account, and pocketed over $50 million, has been left empty-handed after the Supreme Court ordered her to return the shares or pay him back at the share price maturity rates.

Defendant Kristina Graham was also ordered to return to her father the interest paid over by Jamaica Money Market Brokers Limited (JMMB) on two different sets of shares between August 3 last year and September this year.

The investment in question consists of 199,500 JMMB US 6 per cent preference shares maturing January 7, 2029, and 95, 999 JMMB US 5.75 per cent preference shares maturing March 6, 2025.

The claimant, John Graham, had also sued his daughter for recovery of 219,641 Victoria Mutual Investments Limited shares or cost, which he claimed she sold for $1.1 million and transferred from the JMMB account. However, judgment on that aspect has been deferred by the court.

DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS

However, the court, in respect to the VMIL shares, refused the relief sought on the basis that another daughter, who is the third joint holder of that account, was not involved in the proceedings and would be deprived of due process.

The claimant, in January 2016, had opened the investment account, which he solely financed, with his daughter, who was then a 20-year-old university student, as a joint holder.

However, following a family dispute in July last year, Kristina sold all the shares and withdrew monies, totalling US$357, 302, purportedly without her father’s knowledge.

John, who had initially thought they were being scammed and had even notified his daughter, subsequently filed a claim to recover his investment after she ignored his requests via phone calls and emails to return the funds.

Following the March hearing, Justice Carole Barnaby last month found that the claimant “was at all material times the sole beneficial owner of the monies and the underlying investment in the JMMB account” and granted several other orders.

ORAL AGREEMENT

According to the claimant, in or around December 2015, he and his daughter had orally agreed he would be entitled to all the monies and dividends generated; he would have sole decision-making powers; and she would be joined solely for the purpose of ensuring in the event of sudden illness, death or emergency, she would be able to access the account for funds and to derive a benefit.

But his daughter maintained that there was no agreement save that he had gifted it to her.

“He said I am young, I don’t have anything in my name. Don’t tell anybody about the account. It is just between he and I. The other account was another investment. I am helping you. We are opening this investment account that you will both have access to,” she was quoted in the judgment as saying when asked what were her father’s exact words when he told her that the accounts were a gift.

But John countered that he would not have gifted her such a substantial sum at the time because she was very young, had no financial expertise, and had not shown the level of maturity to satisfy him that she could manage the money.

Noting that it is undisputed that John opened the account close to his 61st birthday, Justice Barnaby said, “When the claimant’s age at the time of opening of the account is taken together with his unchallenged evidence that the monies and underlying investments represented a substantial part of his life savings and the defendant’s youth and lack of financial experience, I find it to be more probable than not that the claimant, who the defendant agrees was an avid investor, intended to retain the beneficial interest in the monies and underlying investment instruments in the account even though it was opened in the parties’ joint names.”

Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels represented John Graham while attorneys-at-law Stephanie Williams and Ronece Simpson appeared for Kristin Graham.