Ex-worker, companies ordered by court to pay Ansa Bank $40m

A branch of Ansa Bank. FILE PHOTO -

The High Court has ordered a former employee and several companies to pay more than $40 million in damages, interest and costs to Ansa Bank Ltd, following findings that fraudulent loans were approved and processed through a conspiracy.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order as he provided his assessment of damages in favour of Ansa Bank on December 15.

On November 20, the judge found that a former business development officer of the bank breached his contractual and fiduciary duties, and conspired with roll-on/roll-off car dealers, to defraud the financial institution of $30 million during a two-and-a-half-year loan scheme.

Justice Seepersad ruled against former ABL business development officer (BDO) Dwayne Rojas, ordering him to pay damages.

The judge found that Rojas, seconded to ABL’s banking division, knowingly processed fraudulent vehicle-loan applications supported by falsified job letters and fabricated certified extracts.

The court held that Rojas colluded with the used-car dealers to present non-existent vehicles as loan collateral, causing substantial loss to the bank.

On Monday, Rojas was ordered to pay $16,521,502.73 in damages, inclusive of two awards of interest and prescribed costs of $316,607.51.

The court accepted the bank’s evidence that Rojas approved or processed fraudulent loans totalling more than $27 million, less repayments, and adopted the bank’s calculations as accurate and representative of principal sums and interest owed.

In related default judgments, the court entered judgment against five corporate defendants – Ceylon Marketing Ltd, Joalex Auto Ltd, Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, Diamond Conceptions Company Ltd, and It’s A Deal Ltd.

In his assessment ruling, Seepersad ordered the following sums, inclusive of interest, to be paid to Ansa Bank: Ceylon Marketing Ltd, $6,298,314.67; Joalex Auto Ltd, $11,837,735.80; Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, $4,091,206.49; Diamond Conceptions, $389,923.79; and It’s A Deal Ltd, $837,313.37.

Prescribed costs were also awarded against each, ranging from $27,221.57 to $131,934.91.

Seepersad’s ruling also addressed costs arising from freezing injunctions imposed earlier in the proceedings. While the Court of Appeal had reinstated freezing injunctions against several defendants and awarded appellate costs, the judge declined to award additional injunction-related costs against those defendants.

Conversely, he ordered Ansa Bank to pay costs related to the freezing injunctions to three defendants against whom the substantive claims were dismissed, awarding $58,430 to the third defendant, $52,725 plus $1,010 in disbursements to the sixth defendant, and $33,000 to the 13th defendant.

The fifth defendant was ordered to pay $31,300 in costs to the bank in respect of a freezing injunction previously granted.

In sharply worded remarks, the judge criticised the bank’s pursuit of claims against certain junior employees, describing those cases as “ill-advised,” lacking merit and bona fides. The judge said litigation should not be used as a “fishing expedition” and cautioned that the court’s process must not unfairly and unjustly impact individuals.

“Litigation is serious business, and it imposes significant financial and emotional distress upon the parties. Extreme caution and discernment must be exercised, and regard must also be had for the limited resources of the court, and the court’s process must not be used as a fishing expedition.

“The case against each of these defendants was ill-advised, devoid of merit, and lacked bona fides, and the court formed the impression that the claimant was so addled by the magnitude of its losses due to the fraudulent loans that it adopted an almost bullying stance and inappropriately threw all the junior employees under the proverbial bus.

“Such action will not be countenanced as the lives of these litigants were unfairly and unjustly impacted.”

As a result, the court awarded prescribed trial costs to the third, fifth, sixth and 13th defendants, totalling more than $896,000, calculated after crediting repayments made toward the loans.

Ansa Bank had filed the civil lawsuit to recover about $30 million lost in a fraudulent vehicle-loan scheme. In one case, a driver’s permit showed it was issued when the applicant was 14-years-old.

In others, job letters contained glaring inconsistencies.

Vehicles listed as high-end collateral – including Lexus RXs, Range Rover Evoques and Sports, BMW X5s and X3s, and Jeep Rubicons – were later confirmed by the Transport Division to be lower-end vehicles or commercial trucks.

Justice Seepersad described Rojas’s conduct as “not carelessness, but more likely…in furtherance of a facinorous and opportunistic agenda,” noting evidence that he socialised regularly with representatives of several dealerships, which the court said supported an inference of collusion.

The judge had dismissed ABL’s claims against former employees Zaria Sankar, Reyvaan Rampersad and Kerry Ramsaroop, finding no proof of wrongdoing or conspiracy.

He also dismissed the case against Adriana Ramsingh, the former partner of ex-employee Randy Gottsleben, ruling there was no evidence linking her to any fraudulent conduct. A Master of the High Court will determine the quantum of damages to be paid to the bank by Gottsleben, as previously ordered by the judge.

Summary judgment had been granted against the five roll-on/roll-off companies. Default judgment was also entered against Arnold Ramjass, trading as Arnold Ramjass Auto Mechanical and Painting Garage, with damages to be assessed.

After five days of trial, the fourth defendant, Navindra Rambarran, entered into an agreement with the bank, and the claim against him was dismissed. Freezing orders remained in place against defendants for whom judgment has been entered.

Seepersad sharply criticised ABL’s internal controls, calling them “woefully wanting,” and faulted the bank for pursuing junior staff while senior officers who approved the loans were neither sued nor called as witnesses. He said the fraud was uncovered only after a whistle-blower wrote to a former bank director in June 2023.

The judge also ordered that the judgment be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to consider whether criminal charges should be brought against Gottsleben, Rojas and the dealers.

He also directed that the decision be sent to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism to review whether the dealerships should retain their operating licences.

ABL was represented by Ian Benjamin, SC, Bryan McCutcheon and Candace Layers.

Leon Kalicharan and Samantha Singh-Poona represented Rojas; Vashisht Seepersad represented Sankar; Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram and Vandana Benny represented Rampersad; Avril Gay represented Ramsaroop, and Andre Koomalsingh represented Ramsingh.