2 weeks ago
2
Justice Frank Seepersad. - THE High Court has delivered its ruling in the lawsuit brought by ANSA Merchant Bank (AMB) to recover $30 million from six of its former employees, five roll-on/roll-off dealers and a client.
In a 100-plus page ruling, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed AMB’s claims against four of its former employees and the former partner of one but 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 the $30 million during the two-and-a-half-year loan scheme.
Justice Seepersad ruled against former AMB business development officer (BDO) Dwayne Rojas.
The judge found that Rojas, seconded to AMB’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.
Rojas worked as a BDO at AMB from August 2017 before being seconded to the claimant in January 2021. Justice Seepersad found that his duties included verifying loan documents, assessing the authenticity of job letters and vehicle information, ensuring compliance with AML/KYC rules, and reporting suspicious transactions.
In the same ruling, Justice Seepersad dismissed AMB’s cases against former employees Zaria Sankar, Reyvaan Rampersad, and Kerry Ramsaroop, finding the bank had failed to establish wrongdoing or any involvement in a conspiracy. He also dismissed the case against Adriana Ramsingh, the former partner of another former employee Randy Gottsleben, against whom judgment in default had been previously entered. Summary judgment had been granted against the five roll-on/roll-off companies – Ceylon Marketing Ltd, Joalex Auto Ltd, Miva Import Export Consultancy Ltd, Diamond Conception Company Ltd and It’s A Deal Ltd – ordering them to repay AMB a total of $24 million received through the fraudulent loan scheme.
Judgment in default was also granted against Arnold Ramjass (of Arnold Ramjass Auto Mechanical and Painting Gargage, with damages to be assessed.
After the five days of trial, the fourth defendant in the case, Navindra Rambarran, entered into an agreement with the bank so the claim against him was dismissed.
There were 13 defendants in all. Freezing orders remain in place against those defendants for whom judgment has been entered.
In his ruling, Justice Seepersad held that Rojas repeatedly failed to fulfil these obligations and intentionally overlooked glaring irregularities in loan files. One loan applicant’s driver’s permit indicated it was issued when the applicant was 14 years old; others submitted job letters with significant inconsistencies. In every highlighted case, the vehicles listed as collateral did not exist. According to the judgment, loan transactions for high-end luxury vehicles – Lexus RXs, Range Rover Evoques and Sports, BMW X5 and X3s, Jeep Rubicons – were made. After checks were made with the Transport Division, they turned out to be lower-end vehicles such as Nissan Marches, Toyota Raize and Volkswagon Jetta, Hyundai H100 and Nissan Caravan Toyota Hiace, and a Fuso Canter delivery truck.
The judge rejected Rojas’s explanation that BDOs were not trained to verify certified extracts, stating he had a duty to detect obvious discrepancies. The court found his pattern of conduct “not carelessness, but more likely … in furtherance of a facinorous and opportunistic agenda.”
Evidence showed Rojas socialised regularly with representatives of several roll-on/roll-off dealerships at bars in Chaguanas. The judge found this indicated “an unusual relationship” inconsistent with ordinary professional contact and supported an inference of collusion.
He concluded that Rojas acted with the intention to injure AMB, likely benefited financially, and conspired with co-defendants to mislead the bank through fabricated documents and false loan applications.
The court held Sankar competently discharged her duties, relied lawfully on closing documents prepared by the bank’s attorneys, and had no reason to suspect fraud. Justice Seepersad found no evidence linking her to any conspiracy or unlawful means. Rampersad was implicated in only two transactions and the judge ruled he had no duty to review the work of BDOs not assigned to him and that senior officials approved the loans.
The judge criticised AMB for failing to call those senior approvers as witnesses, calling the omission “striking” and “deeply curious.” As an operations supervisor, Ramsaroop had no proven obligation to verify loan-document authenticity, according to the judge. His work was described as “slipshod,” but the judge held that errors did not amount to fraud or breach of contract.
Ramsingh, who was not an AMB employee, was cleared of all allegations. The court ruled that any irregularities involving her property transaction stemmed solely from the conduct of the Gottsleben, with whom she had a personal relationship. The judge said there was no evidence tying her to any fraudulent acts.
Justice Seepersad sharply criticised AMB for targeting junior staff while avoiding action against senior officers who approved the loans. He noted that managers such as Arnand Ramlal, Edmund Joachim, Reynold Thomas, and Robert Le Hunte signed off on the transactions but were not made parties to the suit or called as witnesses.
He also found AMB’s internal controls “woefully wanting.” He said there were inadequate verification systems, absence of mandatory vehicle inspections, and a focus on market expansion over risk management. The fraud was discovered only after a whistle-blower raised concerns in a letter to former bank director Larry Howai in June 2023.
“In this court’s view, the patent and visible contradictory information which was manifest on documents such as the job letters and invoices ought to have immediately incited suspicion in the minds of these approving officers even though initial approval was issued by the first and second defendants.
“It appears that the claimant was myopically focused on building its market share and in its pursuit of this objective, no satisfactory safeguards or supervisory vigilance was implemented in its dealing with the preferred roll-on roll-off dealers.
“The woefully wanting systems and lax approach were quickly identified and exploited by the first and second defendants and the roll-on roll-off defendants. It is also difficult to understand why mandatory physical verification of the vehicles allegedly purchased was never engaged and why there existed no policy which mandated such verification especially after the claimant had previously discovered that persons on the Business Development and Operations Teams respectively had made significant errors in the inputting of vital data.
“The claimant’s lack of proper internal processes and carelessness could have seriously compromised their financial viability and fortunately for it and its depositors, concerns over these questionable loans were brought to its attention by the whistle-blower.”
According to the judge, “In a society where many have suffered as a result of the demise of CLICO and the Hindu Credit Union, as a responsible financial institution, the claimant owed a duty of care to its investors and more importantly, its depositors, to have implemented better internal systems to protect their financial interests and to minimise the occurrence of schemes such as those which were perpetrated by the first and second defendants and the roll-on roll-off companies.”
Given the court’s findings, Justice Seepersad ordered that the judgment be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued against Gottsleben, Rojas and the roll-on/roll-off dealers.
“This court has found, on a balance of probabilities,, that their conduct was fraudulent and was calculated to, and did in fact, occasion financial harm to the claimant and, by extension, to all citizens who were depositors.
“The type of actions which were engaged ought not to be tolerated and wrongdoers at every level must be held to account. This society must adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unlawful conduct in all its manifestations.”
He also directed that the decision be forwarded to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism to review whether the implicated dealerships should retain their operating licences. The quantum of restitution to be paid by Gottsleben and Rojas would be determined at a later stage as well as the issue of costs to be paid by AMB to those former employees against whom the claim was dismissed as well as costs related to the previous injunction applications.
Seepersad also urged attorneys to adhere to the timelines ordered by the court to enable judges to deliver timely rulings.
In advising attorneys to not only manage their time effectively or even refuse cases, he noted, “The judicial system is plagued by systematic delays and the absence of self-regulation by judicial officers, leadership, and accountability has led to a culture of reserved judgments. Citizens deserve the timely delivery of reasoned decisions and a court's pivotal responsibility is to determine disputes efficiently and effectively according to the law and the evidence.”
He warned, “The Bench and Bar share an almost symbiotic relationship and moving forward a no-tolerance approach to applications for extensions of time to file submissions, save for the most unexpected of circumstances, needs to be adopted.” AMB 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.
English (US) ·