Tweet
How they stole Bentley Rose's money
Wignall's WorldMark Wignall
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I recently came upon an incredible story. It is a story of fraud and betrayal; of cronyism and corruption; of victimisation and persecution. Upon first coming across it, I could hardly believe it.
It is the story of a black Jamaican man of rural origin and limited literacy skills who came to Kingston in search of opportunity, and who, by dint of hard work and business acumen, accumulated substantial wealth.
It is the story of the theft of his wealth by persons of high education and social standing in their positions as agents of reputable financial institutions.
It is the story of his powerlessness to get back even the first dollar of his stolen wealth and of his efforts to save himself from being incarcerated at the contrivance of those same persons of privilege. At times throughout, it seemed that even the various areas of the justice system had taken a stand against the small man unable to articulate 'class' and the 'correct' social bearing.
When did all this happen? That's the astonishing part. It is happening now, even as I write this column. It is as though the victimisers believe in their immunity no matter how despicable, how flagrant the transgressions are and have been brought to light.
For those of you who believe "is black man time now", read on.
Background
Let's begin near the end: with Mr Rose borrowing $1.996 million in May 1997 from a large and well-established financial institution said to cater to small savers. It is that credit union which you all know. Can you see it?
The debt was fully secured as follows:
a) Funds held at the institution totalling $1.3 million.
b) Funds held at another financial institution totalling US$20,000.
c) Three motor vehicles with a combined value of over $1 million.
Mr Rose made his loan payments faithfully for one year. However, upon realising that he would have difficulty making further payments, he advised the institution to collect the debt outstanding from the securities held. Remember now, the securities, easily convertible into cash, had far exceeded the loan amount.
He heard nothing further from the institution until he received a call from its bailiff in 1999 seeking to recover two of the vehicles pledged. Mr Rose shortly delivered the two vehicles in fine working order, imagining no doubt, that that was an end of the matter.
He received no further notice or communication from the institution regarding his debt, and reasonably thought that the matter was at an end.
How wrong he was!
Upon attempting, a year later (April 2000), to obtain the title for the third car pledged, he was told to his astonishment that he owed the institution over $1.28 million.
Naturally, Mr Rose disputed this, and the matter was referred to arbitration in 2001 where, inexplicably, a decision was made in favour of the institution - despite its failure to provide any particulars as to the disposition of Mr Rose's securities.
Consequently, that decision was overturned by another arbitrator three years later (2004) - but not before the institution had obtained a court judgment against Mr Rose for over $1.2 million based on the first arbitration.
On the basis of this judgment, the institution has actually sought to incarcerate Mr Rose on more than one occasion. On one notable occasion in February 2003 two bailiffs came to arrest him whilst he was at the Half-Way-Tree Court. Mr Rose was there to give evidence against two bank managers (of another financial institutions) who had stolen millions of Mr Rose's money.
Only the intervention of the then deputy director of public prosecutions was sufficient for the bailiffs to withdraw.
Later that year, the credit union published a notice in the newspapers (June 2003) seeking to know the whereabouts of Mr Rose, despite having his address (where he was actually residing) on file.
Even after the new arbitration ruling, which found that the institution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that Mr Rose was indebted to it, the institution still tried to arrest Mr Rose in February 2006.
However, on that occasion the court set aside the warrant for his arrest on the basis that the original arbitration award had been overturned.
Yet, despite this, astonishingly, the institution still maintains a claim against Mr Rose for a sum (with interest accrued) of over $2 million.
How is this possible? Simple. Mr Rose is uneducated, not of the 'correct' social standing and unexposed to the wiles and guiles of those who see him as an easy mark. In plain language, an easy man to rob.
So what happened to Mr Rose's funds and cars used as security?
At first, the institution tried to say that Mr Rose had encashed the funds held as security.
Well, at the second arbitration hearing in June 2004 the financial institution's chief legal officer was unable to produce any documents to show the amounts in his various accounts, the loan balance, and the interest balance at the time the two cars were repossessed. How could that be possible?
At that stage the institution (through its chief legal officer) was contending:
a) That Mr Rose had withdrawn the very funds that the institution had used as security - yet could not produce the signed withdrawal document. And since when does any sound financial institution allow substantial withdrawals upon funds used to secure its loans?
b) That another borrower's funds had mistakenly been assigned to secure Mr Rose's loan - this was totally discredited when it was discovered that that other borrower had had almost 10 times less funds in his account than Mr Rose had in his at the time that Mr Rose took out the loan, so there was no way that that other borrower's account could have "mistakenly" been used to secure Mr Rose's loan.
c) That it had apparently authorised the release of the US$20,000 hypothecated at another financial institution - yet could not locate any of the authorisation documents (despite several officers looking off-site in some packed-away documents).
The ridiculousness of these positions forced the chief legal officer to admit at that arbitration hearing in 2004 that the Fraud Squad had recently been called in to probe the inexplicable irregularities with Mr Rose's accounts. This was some three years after Mr Rose, through his attorneys, had first demanded that the matter be reported to the Fraud Squad. And, according to the Fraud Squad, the institution still had not reported any fraud subsequent to the hearing, even though, as stated, the chief legal officer had admitted to the contrary. In plain language, the chief legal officer had lied.
It is interesting to note that between 2002 and 2005 several officers of that credit union were dismissed for fraud - pilfering from borrowers' accounts.
Without a shred of evidence to support its claim that Mr Rose is indebted to it, the institution, known to the country as the small man's saviour, continues to persecute him, to sully his business reputation in insisting that he is indebted to it, for now, over $2 million.
In fact, it is the institution that is mightily indebted to Mr Rose, for the injury to his reputation and his business interests which have been severe and are continuing. It ought to back off now before time presents an opportunity for its name and further details of this nastiness to be dragged through the newspapers like the next case.
Trafalgar Commercial Bank, Melanie Tapper, Winston McKenzie guilty
Between September 1991 and May 1995 Mr Rose discovered fraud in accounts he had with Trafalgar Commercial Bank. Persons at the bank who had wormed their way into Mr Rose's confidence; Melanie Tapper, general manager and Winston McKenzie, manager, were the persons highlighted as the perpetrators of the fraud.
Mr Rose instituted court proceedings against the bank and the two in 1995/1996. As is typical in our justice system, the matter dragged on and on. On the last day of the trial, Winston McKenzie made $1.7 million restitution, but both himself and Tapper were convicted (McKenzie - 14 counts; Tapper - 6 counts) of fraudulent conversion of $7 million in May 2003 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. They immediately appealed the sentences.
Between that time and now - four years - they have been free to go their way while Mr Rose still remains bilked of his hard-earned money. Remember now, the two were convicted in 2003, and have been going their merry way pending the appeal, which has not yet been heard.
To compound matters, the transcript of the trial has only just now become available; four years later! Justice delayed, justice denied.
In 2003, while he was giving instructions to the assistant director of public prosecutions in the fraud trial at Half-Way-Tree court against the two defendants, persons of high social and professional standing, who stood accused of stealing tens of millions of dollars of Mr Rose's money, two bailiffs attempted to arrest him in the confines of the court house.
That arrest order had come from the 'friendly' credit union. As previously stated, it was the DPP who staved off the arrest.
And why would they have attempted to arrest Mr Rose at HWT court? This scenario puts all conspiracy theorists to shame. Mr Rose has been thus victimised in open daylight by the powers that be and by persons of his own racial origins. Black man time indeed. Marcus Garvey must still be turning.
Unjust Reward for Hard work and Thrift
At the time when Mr Rose began saving at the 'friendly' credit union he was just beyond his mid-20s, with rapidly growing businesses - a haberdashery, and a garage at Kew Road in Kingston. He also sold furniture and appliances. He also had substantial accounts at a few commercial banks, including Workers Bank and Scotiabank.
By May 1997, Mr Rose had been saving with the financial institution - the well known credit union which is now trying to rip him off - for 20 years. He now had three accounts: Shares Account: $1.02m; a Fixed Deposit; and a Certificate of Deposit: $409,162.88.
Over the period, according to the chief legal officer (under cross-examination) Mr Rose had deposited over $41 million throughout the period of his membership. All these years, he had never borrowed from the credit union.
He finally did in May 1997. Having been persistently persuaded by the company's legal advisor - with whom he enjoyed a very cordial relationship, as a substantial and regular saver with the credit union - to take a loan, Mr Rose did so.
He borrowed just under $2 million. That decision has cost him dearly; its repercussions continue to bedevil him even now, 10 years later.
observemark@gmail.com
Wignall's WorldMark Wignall
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I recently came upon an incredible story. It is a story of fraud and betrayal; of cronyism and corruption; of victimisation and persecution. Upon first coming across it, I could hardly believe it.
It is the story of a black Jamaican man of rural origin and limited literacy skills who came to Kingston in search of opportunity, and who, by dint of hard work and business acumen, accumulated substantial wealth.
It is the story of the theft of his wealth by persons of high education and social standing in their positions as agents of reputable financial institutions.
It is the story of his powerlessness to get back even the first dollar of his stolen wealth and of his efforts to save himself from being incarcerated at the contrivance of those same persons of privilege. At times throughout, it seemed that even the various areas of the justice system had taken a stand against the small man unable to articulate 'class' and the 'correct' social bearing.
When did all this happen? That's the astonishing part. It is happening now, even as I write this column. It is as though the victimisers believe in their immunity no matter how despicable, how flagrant the transgressions are and have been brought to light.
For those of you who believe "is black man time now", read on.
Background
Let's begin near the end: with Mr Rose borrowing $1.996 million in May 1997 from a large and well-established financial institution said to cater to small savers. It is that credit union which you all know. Can you see it?
The debt was fully secured as follows:
a) Funds held at the institution totalling $1.3 million.
b) Funds held at another financial institution totalling US$20,000.
c) Three motor vehicles with a combined value of over $1 million.
Mr Rose made his loan payments faithfully for one year. However, upon realising that he would have difficulty making further payments, he advised the institution to collect the debt outstanding from the securities held. Remember now, the securities, easily convertible into cash, had far exceeded the loan amount.
He heard nothing further from the institution until he received a call from its bailiff in 1999 seeking to recover two of the vehicles pledged. Mr Rose shortly delivered the two vehicles in fine working order, imagining no doubt, that that was an end of the matter.
He received no further notice or communication from the institution regarding his debt, and reasonably thought that the matter was at an end.
How wrong he was!
Upon attempting, a year later (April 2000), to obtain the title for the third car pledged, he was told to his astonishment that he owed the institution over $1.28 million.
Naturally, Mr Rose disputed this, and the matter was referred to arbitration in 2001 where, inexplicably, a decision was made in favour of the institution - despite its failure to provide any particulars as to the disposition of Mr Rose's securities.
Consequently, that decision was overturned by another arbitrator three years later (2004) - but not before the institution had obtained a court judgment against Mr Rose for over $1.2 million based on the first arbitration.
On the basis of this judgment, the institution has actually sought to incarcerate Mr Rose on more than one occasion. On one notable occasion in February 2003 two bailiffs came to arrest him whilst he was at the Half-Way-Tree Court. Mr Rose was there to give evidence against two bank managers (of another financial institutions) who had stolen millions of Mr Rose's money.
Only the intervention of the then deputy director of public prosecutions was sufficient for the bailiffs to withdraw.
Later that year, the credit union published a notice in the newspapers (June 2003) seeking to know the whereabouts of Mr Rose, despite having his address (where he was actually residing) on file.
Even after the new arbitration ruling, which found that the institution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that Mr Rose was indebted to it, the institution still tried to arrest Mr Rose in February 2006.
However, on that occasion the court set aside the warrant for his arrest on the basis that the original arbitration award had been overturned.
Yet, despite this, astonishingly, the institution still maintains a claim against Mr Rose for a sum (with interest accrued) of over $2 million.
How is this possible? Simple. Mr Rose is uneducated, not of the 'correct' social standing and unexposed to the wiles and guiles of those who see him as an easy mark. In plain language, an easy man to rob.
So what happened to Mr Rose's funds and cars used as security?
At first, the institution tried to say that Mr Rose had encashed the funds held as security.
Well, at the second arbitration hearing in June 2004 the financial institution's chief legal officer was unable to produce any documents to show the amounts in his various accounts, the loan balance, and the interest balance at the time the two cars were repossessed. How could that be possible?
At that stage the institution (through its chief legal officer) was contending:
a) That Mr Rose had withdrawn the very funds that the institution had used as security - yet could not produce the signed withdrawal document. And since when does any sound financial institution allow substantial withdrawals upon funds used to secure its loans?
b) That another borrower's funds had mistakenly been assigned to secure Mr Rose's loan - this was totally discredited when it was discovered that that other borrower had had almost 10 times less funds in his account than Mr Rose had in his at the time that Mr Rose took out the loan, so there was no way that that other borrower's account could have "mistakenly" been used to secure Mr Rose's loan.
c) That it had apparently authorised the release of the US$20,000 hypothecated at another financial institution - yet could not locate any of the authorisation documents (despite several officers looking off-site in some packed-away documents).
The ridiculousness of these positions forced the chief legal officer to admit at that arbitration hearing in 2004 that the Fraud Squad had recently been called in to probe the inexplicable irregularities with Mr Rose's accounts. This was some three years after Mr Rose, through his attorneys, had first demanded that the matter be reported to the Fraud Squad. And, according to the Fraud Squad, the institution still had not reported any fraud subsequent to the hearing, even though, as stated, the chief legal officer had admitted to the contrary. In plain language, the chief legal officer had lied.
It is interesting to note that between 2002 and 2005 several officers of that credit union were dismissed for fraud - pilfering from borrowers' accounts.
Without a shred of evidence to support its claim that Mr Rose is indebted to it, the institution, known to the country as the small man's saviour, continues to persecute him, to sully his business reputation in insisting that he is indebted to it, for now, over $2 million.
In fact, it is the institution that is mightily indebted to Mr Rose, for the injury to his reputation and his business interests which have been severe and are continuing. It ought to back off now before time presents an opportunity for its name and further details of this nastiness to be dragged through the newspapers like the next case.
Trafalgar Commercial Bank, Melanie Tapper, Winston McKenzie guilty
Between September 1991 and May 1995 Mr Rose discovered fraud in accounts he had with Trafalgar Commercial Bank. Persons at the bank who had wormed their way into Mr Rose's confidence; Melanie Tapper, general manager and Winston McKenzie, manager, were the persons highlighted as the perpetrators of the fraud.
Mr Rose instituted court proceedings against the bank and the two in 1995/1996. As is typical in our justice system, the matter dragged on and on. On the last day of the trial, Winston McKenzie made $1.7 million restitution, but both himself and Tapper were convicted (McKenzie - 14 counts; Tapper - 6 counts) of fraudulent conversion of $7 million in May 2003 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. They immediately appealed the sentences.
Between that time and now - four years - they have been free to go their way while Mr Rose still remains bilked of his hard-earned money. Remember now, the two were convicted in 2003, and have been going their merry way pending the appeal, which has not yet been heard.
To compound matters, the transcript of the trial has only just now become available; four years later! Justice delayed, justice denied.
In 2003, while he was giving instructions to the assistant director of public prosecutions in the fraud trial at Half-Way-Tree court against the two defendants, persons of high social and professional standing, who stood accused of stealing tens of millions of dollars of Mr Rose's money, two bailiffs attempted to arrest him in the confines of the court house.
That arrest order had come from the 'friendly' credit union. As previously stated, it was the DPP who staved off the arrest.
And why would they have attempted to arrest Mr Rose at HWT court? This scenario puts all conspiracy theorists to shame. Mr Rose has been thus victimised in open daylight by the powers that be and by persons of his own racial origins. Black man time indeed. Marcus Garvey must still be turning.
Unjust Reward for Hard work and Thrift
At the time when Mr Rose began saving at the 'friendly' credit union he was just beyond his mid-20s, with rapidly growing businesses - a haberdashery, and a garage at Kew Road in Kingston. He also sold furniture and appliances. He also had substantial accounts at a few commercial banks, including Workers Bank and Scotiabank.
By May 1997, Mr Rose had been saving with the financial institution - the well known credit union which is now trying to rip him off - for 20 years. He now had three accounts: Shares Account: $1.02m; a Fixed Deposit; and a Certificate of Deposit: $409,162.88.
Over the period, according to the chief legal officer (under cross-examination) Mr Rose had deposited over $41 million throughout the period of his membership. All these years, he had never borrowed from the credit union.
He finally did in May 1997. Having been persistently persuaded by the company's legal advisor - with whom he enjoyed a very cordial relationship, as a substantial and regular saver with the credit union - to take a loan, Mr Rose did so.
He borrowed just under $2 million. That decision has cost him dearly; its repercussions continue to bedevil him even now, 10 years later.
observemark@gmail.com
Comment