Ralph Fonseca’s theft case adjourned to March 3
Posted: 06/02/2009 - 09:50 AM
Author: Rowland A. Parks
Ralph Fonseca, the former Minister of National Security and Housing, appeared in the Belmopan Magistrate’s Court this morning before Magistrate Earl Jones for a preliminary inquiry into a charge of theft.
The prosecution, represented by Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Cheryl-Lynn Branker-Taitt, has charged Fonseca and former Prime Minister Said Musa with the theft of US 10 million. The money was part of a grant of US 20 million to the government of Belize from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The US 10 million that the two former government Ministers have allegedly stolen was paid to the Belize Bank as part of a government-guaranteed loan that the Musa administration signed with the bank on behalf of Universal Health Services Limited, a privately owned hospital at the time when their loan from the Belize Bank was guaranteed by Hon. Musa, who was also Minister of Finance.
This morning’s proceedings began with Branker-Taitt telling the court that the disclosure evidence had been given to the defense on time. Fonseca is being defended by the former Attorney General, Francis Fonseca, and attorneys Dickie Bradley and Michael Peyrefitte.
Magistrate Jones told the defense attorneys that he will allow the lead attorney to make the submission. But Peyrefitte told the court that they had each prepared a separate submission to address different aspects of the charge of theft.
Francis Fonseca made the first submission. He asked the court not to accept the deposition of Amalia Mai. There is no record of the taking of the deposition, Fonseca argued. He asked the court to make a ruling on the admissibility of Mai’s deposition.
DPP Branker-Taitt countered that the deposition was taken under the provisions of the Indictable Procedures Act.
Magistrate Jones told the court that the deposition of Mai was taken by the Clerk of the Court and that he would accept it as part of the evidence in the case.
Amalia Mai, the former CEO in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gave a deposition on December 31, 2008, after Musa and Fonseca were arraigned on the charge of theft.
Fonseca argued that none of the evidence that has been disclosed to the defense has proven where the appropriation occurred. Appropriation is a key element of the charge of theft, he said. Also, there is a fundamental failure to show where the alleged crime was committed. At the time of the signing of the agreement between Belize and Venezuela no proprietary interest existed. The prosecution failed to show that there was property to be stolen or when it was stolen, he told the court.
Michael Peyrefitte told the court that a person cannot be found guilty of stealing something that did not exist. What the Crown is saying, he said, in this case, is that on December 28, 2007 the people of Belize owned US10 million and that the accused person stole it.
Peyrefitte said that December 28, 2007 was the date when the two countries signed the agreement, and that Belize merely gained equitable interest with the signing of the agreement. All Belize had on December 28, 2007, was an agreement to receive a grant from Venezuela. According to the criminal code a person cannot steal an equitable interest, which cannot be treated as property, he said.
Peyrefitte further argued that the prosecution had to prove that the offense occurred in Belmopan and that it occurred on December 28, 2007. He argued that the money did not exist on December 28, 2007, and that there was nothing to divert on that date.
Dickie Bradley began his submission saying that there is insufficient evidence and therefore it would be a waste of the Supreme Court’s time to send the case there. .The totality of the disclosure is a statement from the present Prime Minister, Hon. Dean Barrow. And that is merely a recollection of a meeting that he had with Said Musa and Ralph Fonseca. There was no file, the Prime Minister made it up in March, 2008, he said.
There is no prima facie case because the essential elements of the offense have not been made out. There is no evidence of appropriation, Bradley said.
Magistrate Jones told Bradley that he was going in depth with the evidence, and that he is going into a different direction.
But Bradley told the court that he has to examine the evidence, because without the evidence there is no case.
Musa has been charged with the theft of US10 million. How come, on another day, another person is charged with the theft of the same money? Yet there was no joint enterprise suggested by the prosecutor, said Bradley.
Turning to the deposition of Amalia Mai, Bradley describes her as a snitch. “In the words of the streets, Ms. Mai turned snitch.”
Branker-Taitt began her response saying that there was sufficient evidence for the accused to stand trial. “I further submit that the submission from the defense were fundamentally flawed and incorrect and at times totally irrelevant,” she said.
Magistrate Earl Jones adjourned the case until March 3, when he will deliver his ruling on the submission. The ruling will determine whether the case will be submitted to the Supreme Court, where it would be tried by a judge, but the decision of guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury.
Magistrate Jones will rule on Musa’s defense team’s no-case submission on Tuesday, February 10.
|