Friday 10 February 2012

The Bolden Affair

David & Antoinette Bolden ran Emerald Financial Group and Emerald Capital International.

The couple were accused of stealing from exempt company Emerald Capital International, laundering the stolen funds and also providing false information about their Emerald Financial Group of companies to the Bermuda Monetary Authority [BMA].

The total amount alleged to have been stolen was $272,000. ECI was founded by the Bolden’s with two Canadian partners in 2007. Their business partners accused them of plundering the company accounts.

Following a Jury trial in Supreme Court in 2011, the Bolden’s were eventually cleared of 18 theft and money laundering charges, but were convicted of misleading the BMA over the financial position of the Emerald Financial Group, which was licensed by the regulator. They were eventually sentenced to 200 hours of community service.

During the trial, the jury heard about a wireless internet project that the company in question, ECI, worked on. The project was described by the Bolden’s’ former ECI business partner John Wright as a “next generation giant hotspot” to link internet, telephones and high definition television.

Mr Wright, who gave evidence for the prosecution, and the Bolden’s, who gave evidence in their own defence, told the jury about a presentation on November 4, 2008 where the wireless project was demonstrated to Government officials including then-Premier Dr Brown at the Cabinet Office.

During the trial David Bolden, responded to questions by prosecutor Susan Mulligan and Chief Justice Richard Ground, by claiming a Government Minister had told him that the former Premier (Dr Brown) wanted ten percent of his wireless technology company and, furthermore, wanted his wife Wanda Henton Brown to be given a place on the board.

Mr Bolden also stated, under oath, that the former Premier had asked for a 60 percent share of the commission he earned from work on Bermuda’s public pension funds.

Since these allegations were not made in front of the jury, local media were prohibited from reporting them until the trial finished.

True to previous form, Dr Brown tried to prevent publication of the claims beyond the end of the trial but, as on a previous occasion, he was unsuccessful. He was also ordered to pay the costs incurred by the media.

Inevitably perhaps, Dr Brown denied the accusations and described them in a statement as “outrageous” and “a total fabrication”.
Dr Brown also instructed lawyers Mark Pettingill and Marc Daniels, of Charter Chambers Bermuda, to represent him. In a letter to The Royal Gazette on June 9, Mr Daniels wrote:

“Any and all comments relating to Dr Brown being involved in any type of ‘kick back’ or payments to him or advantage from the Bolden’s personally or any company with which they are involved is unequivocally denied.”

Mr Pettingill said Dr Brown planned to mount a private prosecution against Mr Bolden, alleging he (David Bolden) had committed perjury.

Subsequently, Dr Brown also welcomed news of a police inquiry into the corruption claims made against him and pledged to assist the investigation in any way he could.

In January 2012, Police Commissioner Mr DeSilva provided an update to the Royal Gazette. He said: “The Bermuda Police Service initiated enquiries into allegations of corruption on the part of Dr Brown and others that were made by David Bolden during the course of his own trial in June of last year.

“During our enquiries it became necessary to seek the assistance of an overseas law enforcement agency to look into activities that may have occurred in the United States.

“Work is still being done to examine claims made by the complainant and other witnesses. The matter remains under investigation, but it is important to note that no charges have been laid to date as up to now there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”

He said he could not divulge which overseas agency is involved in the inquiry, who the other witnesses are and whether Dr Brown has been interviewed by police over the allegations.

“The witnesses include persons who were not connected to the Bolden trial, but once again, it’s not for me to divulge who they are at this time,” said Mr DeSilva.

Thursday 2 February 2012

Auditor General's Report

As the antics of this Government show no signs of abating, we have for your reading pleasure a few more highlights from the ongoing saga "Bermuda: Corruption in Paradise".

Protecting the Party – not the People:

What may have been seen, and more to the point "hoped", by many as a turning point in Premier Cox’s Government, has been her vocal commitment to introducing “good governance”.

Pundits and commentators, including the outgoing Governor Sir Richard Gozney, applauded her comments from which we all hoped to look forward to a new era in Bermudian politics; an era free of dubious dealings and highly questionable behaviour by certain members of the ruling party that have been centre stage in political life for some years and, most notably, during Dr Ewart Brown’s tenure.

Whilst realising that Premier Cox would do nothing with regards to historical dealings, we took heart nonetheless, in what we saw as the winds of change blowing through the corridors of power.

Sadly – as we submit this most recent series of shabby and underhand dealings, that is clearly not going to be the case. Clearly, the rot continues, as Cox evades the issues that lie at the heart of this PLP Government.

AUDITOR GENERALS REPORT

On January 26th, 2012, Auditor General Heather Mathews released a damming report after uncovering two instances of the misuse of public funds and stating also, that she had been refused information to fully investigate either of the issues.

Mrs Matthews stated that tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars had been used to pay the private legal fees of former Premier Ewart Brown and current Deputy Premier Derrick Burgess, when the latter was in the role of Minister of Works.

In her attempts to obtain information about the monies that had been spent, she was denied access; the Ministry of Justice told her that the “funding of this action was justified as being for a government purpose”.

The AG’s report also gave details how the publicly funded Bermuda Land Development Company (BLDC), which Mr Burgess was responsible for, paid $160,000 in consultancy fees to the chairman and deputy chairman of its own board, despite being warned more than once of a potential conflict of interest.

Again, the Auditor General asked for but was not provided with written contracts with regards to the consultancy services.

PAYMENT FOR PRIVATE LEGAL FEES:


The legal case involving Dr Brown and Mr Burgess arose when two cheques (which were purported to be payments to Dr Brown and Mr Burgess), were discovered in the files of the Ministry of Works. The cheques were alleged to be in relation to the new Police and Court building.

It was subsequently determined, that the cheques were fakes. The police investigated the matter, including the possible involvement of a Canadian architects firm, but decided not to pursue criminal charges against the firm.

The Auditor General discovered last April that a legal case had been launched in Canada on behalf of Dr Brown and Mr Burgess, in which they were seeking $4 million in damages from a Canadian architect and a Bermuda Government employee for defamation and conspiracy.

Engagement of a Canadian law firm to handle the case was approved by the Cabinet, and the company was paid more than $31,000 out of taxpayer funds.
In her report, the Auditor General stated: “I cannot comprehend how a personal legal matter could be justified by the Government and its legal adviser (the Attorney General) as a legitimate Government matter to be funded out of the public purse”, and she added, “in my opinion, this entire situation is deplorable and represents a blatant disregard for the public purse and a lack of transparency and accountability at the most senior levels of Government.

The initial response from Premier Cox was to insist that the legal case on behalf of Dr Brown and Mr Burgess was a “legitimate action in the public interest”. As such, therefore, the funding was “justified as being for a government purpose”.

The Government had stopped paying the law firm in question last September, following Mrs Matthews’s initial complaints.

Bermuda Land Development Company (BLDC)

BLDC manages the Island’s former baselands.

In her report, the Auditor General also detailed how the publicly funded Bermuda Land Development Company (BLDC), which Mr Burgess was responsible for, paid $160,000 in consultancy fees to the chairman and deputy chairman of its own board; this despite the fact that they had been warned more than once of a potential conflict of interest.

The Auditor asked for but was not provided with written contracts regarding the consultancy services.

THE FACTS:


In March 2010, when the Bermuda Land Development Company’s board approved the payment of consultancy fees to chairman Edward Saunders and deputy chairman Pastor Leroy Bean, and an approximate figure of $14,000 each was approved. The chairman and deputy chairman submitted invoices for work done between February 19 and March 12 (a period of 16 days) and were paid $28,160.

In return for the payments, the two men were to conduct an “assessment of the operations of the company” and there was an expectation that their work would be completed by the end of March.

The AG found, that invoices for $53,680 for work done up to April 30, rather than March 31, were submitted. “They were not explicitly approved by the board. Instead, they were approved by a subcommittee of the board. Although the company’s by-laws permit the board to delegate any of its powers to a subcommittee, we could find no record in board minutes that such delegation had been made.”

In the final analysis, the $110-an-hour work continued for many months, with the pair ultimately netting a total of $160,230 between them; funded by taxpayers.

She says Mr Saunders received $74,525 and Mr Bean $85,705 for work done between February and December 2010.

Of the $160,230 total, only $81,840 was formally approved by the board or reportedly approved by its subcommittee.

The remaining invoices, totalling $78,390, were not formally approved. The AG stated, “they were not explicitly approved by the board. Instead, they were approved by a subcommittee of the board. Although the company’s by-laws permit the board to delegate any of its powers to a subcommittee, we could find no record in board minutes that such delegation had been made.”

She says Mr Saunders received $74,525 and Mr Bean $85,705 for work done between February and December 2010. Of the $160,230 total, only $81,840 was formally approved by the board or reportedly approved by its subcommittee.

The remaining invoices, totalling $78,390, were not formally approved.

Government’s initial response by way of Mr Burgess, (now in his role of Minister of Transport), was to claim that the actions of the BLDC board were “entirely legal”, and further alleged “it seems as if Mrs Matthews is on a personal witch hunt and to suggest that any wrongdoing took place is outrageous and clearly an attempt to malign the integrity of those implicated in her report”.


The Auditor General’s report, begs a number of questions. Many of these have been asked of Govt Ministers by the local media, and are on the lips of many here in Bermuda.

It may be that some of these questions will be answered in the fullness of time. However, given this Government’s historical record in the area of openness, transparency and disclosure, we are quietly confident that many will remain unanswered.

For now, we close off this update, with those questions, and leave you the reader to make your own judgements.

•   Dr Brown and Minister Burgess are the named applicants in the case. Whilst the legal costs were initially paid by the taxpayer, who would benefit if the claim for $4 million in damages is successful? The Premier has (at the date of writing) not answered the question.
 

•   Was there an agreement in place between Dr Brown/Minister Burgess and the Government, with regard to sharing any damages received? The Premier has (at the date of writing) not answered the question.  While Minister Burgess claims there was an agreement in place the Attorney General has stated that no such agreement existed.
 

•   Why was the claim for damages put in the names of Dr Brown and Minister Burgess, as opposed to the Government of Bermuda?  And why did the Attorney General's department refuse to tell the Auditor General who  had authorized the engagement of the Canadian law firm?
 

•   If, as the Premier has said, the action was a “legitimate action in the public interest,” the funding of which was “justified as being for a government purpose”, why did the Government stop paying the law firm in question on behalf of the two Ministers in September 2011, following Mrs Matthews’s complaints.
 

•   The Premier took the decision to disband the BLDC Board in May 2011. Why did she not inform the public of the reasons for her decision?
 

•   Why didn’t the Premier ask Minister Burgess (who is also currently Deputy Premier) to resign, after he ignored her request to ask the BLDC chairman and deputy to step down?
 

•   Why were the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the BLDC Board, paid at the rate of $110 an hour to carry out work which was probably within their remit to carry out in any event?
 

•   The Base Lands Development Act 1996 requires the BLDC to produce an annual report and financial statements each year. The report and financial statements then have to be tabled in the House of Assembly by the responsible Minister. Why is it that an annual report was not tabled between February 13, 2009 and July 2011 or even after the House reconvened in November 2011?
 

•   On February 7, 2011, almost a year after commencement of  consultancy services, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Works wrote to the CEO to confirm (retroactively) that the Minister of Works & Engineering had authorized the Company to engage the services of the Board’s Chairman and Deputy Chairman. Why, like many other directions issued by the Minister of Works & Engineering, was this not submitted to the Minister of Finance for approval as is required by the legislation.”

  Was Pastor Bean paid as a director of BLDC and, if so, what were those payments intended to cover?

•   Who asked Pastor Bean to carry out the work in question? Was it the Minister, or the BLDC Board

•   What were Pastor Bean's terms of reference as Deputy Chairman? 

 

Saturday 19 November 2011

We are a group of concerned Bermudians from all walks of life, all races, and all economic backgrounds that are distraught at the corruption and greed that is destroying our island home. 
The Government of Bermuda under Ewart Brown's Premiership, has left a legacy of greed, corruption, unethical and possibly illegal activities. What's happening in Bermuda mirrors what happened in the Turks & Caicos Islands, where Britain had to step in to resolve the corruption, by removing Michael Misick, a close friend and associate of Ewart Brown.

All of the info contained on this site, has been obtained from public sources, and in most cases has appeared in print at various times in the press. The information here is collated into one body of work, so that the preponderance of the evidence we trust, will be substantial. The information has been reviewed by our lawyers to assure that we are not guilty of libel.

We ask that you view this information, by clicking on the links to the right, with an open mind and if you find, as we do, that our island has been, and continues to be abused by the political forces in power, along with the public purse being used for personal and private gain, that you call for a full and public investigation by Britain into the activities that are ruining this once idyllic island.