Intelligence Pros, Cons, And Those Caught In The Middle
Unwanted Publicity 16 May 2008 20:07 GMTIntelligence report on a few independent offshore banks ( Cayman Islands, etc. ), government intelligence ( foreign bureaus, agents, operations ), non-official cover ( NOC ) government intelligence operatives ( companies, contractors, assets ), foreign courts ( staff and investigators ), international accounting firms, and government appointed liquidators.
Edward Warwick code-name WARLOCK
Intelligence Pros, Cons, And Those Caught In The Middle
By, Unwanted Publicity
May 16, 2008
PART 1
“The larger and more complex the case the greater the need for vigilance.” – Honorable Chief Justice Anthony Smellie ( Cayman Islands, 22DEC02 )
Due to the materially sensitive nature of the information being brought forward, “Part 1” of this 2-part report, an ongoing investigation has caused this report to be divided-up into more than one (1) part.
Part 1 ( herein ) is a basic introduction, although lengthy, that consists primarily of a review of public information articles plus ‘some information no longer publicly available’ surrounding an independent offshore banks ( Cayman Islands and elsewhere ) and official government intelligence operations and non-official cover ( NOC ) government intelligence, agents, and assets.
If one does not read and comprehend Part 1 they will be unable to comprehend Part 2, unless they research far more than what the public press reported, hence this is one (1) of the reasons ‘why’ Part 1 provides enough information ‘if’ someone wished to perform their own further research.
- - - -
Circa: 1999
EURO BANK CORPORATION IN LIQUIDATION
Initial Press Release
On June 16, 1999 the shareholders of EURO BANK CORPORATION ('the Bank') passed a special resolution to place the Bank into voluntary liquidation.
Following from this resolution, the Government of the Cayman Islands, on the recommendation of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, obtained a court order that the liquidation be conducted under the supervision of the Cayman Court.
Mr. Ian Wight and Mr. Michael Pilling of Deloitte & Touche have been appointed as Liquidators, Concurrent with their appointment as Liquidators, the Government of the Cayman Islands has terminated the pre-existing appointment of Mr. Wight and Mr. Pilling as Controllers of the Company.
The Liquidators are responsible for winding up the affairs of the Bank and will continue a full review of the Bank' operations with a view to establishing the best method of disposing of its saleable assets.
Payments to depositors / creditors of The Bank will continue to be frozen pending a review of the Bank's affairs. The extent and timing of payment of funds to depositors / creditors of the Bank, is dependent upon the quantification of the Bank's liabilities as well as the full realisation of its assets, particularly the loan portfolio.
The Liquidators will be sending further information to the Bank's customers in the near future.
Reference 
http://web.archive.org/web/20000304140005/www.eurobank.ky/default.html
- - - -
THE INDEPENDENT - UK
Business
News
Bank Sues Over Curious Cayman Payment
October 14, 2001
An offshore bank is suing the Cayman Islands government for the return of a mysterious $2,500,000.00 million ( £1,720,000,000.00 million ) payment related to obtaining its banking licence.
Recently filed court documents refer to the payment as a "mistake" and show that lawyers acting for the EURO BANK CORPORATION are seeking "repayment by the Crown of the sum of $2,500,000.00 million paid to the Crown under a mistake or otherwise".
Speculation on the islands is that the payment relating to the acquisition of a banking licence which costs only $150,000.00 was - at best - irregular.
The Cayman Islands is among the jurisdictions facing pressure to reform from international groups including OECD and G7.
It was on the Financial Action Task Force [ FATF ] blacklist in June 2000 but the CI [ Cayman Islands ] government has improved the anti-money-laundering legislation and toughened regulation and CI is no longer on the list.
The Cayman Islands is a UK Overseas Territory still technically run by the Crown. It has no direct taxation and 580 banks, 516 licensed insurance companies and 45,000 registered companies ostensibly to serve a population of just 38,000.
As elsewhere in the Caribbean the crackdown of dubious banks has proved embarrassing for the CI government.
In this case the EURO BANK CORPORATION, then a Class B bank, obtained a rarely awarded class A banking license in October 1997 but in 1999 the bank was forced into "voluntary" liquidation by the Cayman Islands government as part of their tough stance on financial regulation.
Government regulators acted after the bank was caught up in a U.S. investigation of a credit card fraud involving EURO BANK CORPORATION client Kenneth Taves of California.
Three (3) of EURO BANK CORPORATION officers, Brian Cunha, Ivan Burgess and Judith Donegan, and six (6) other individuals are facing trial in the U.S.
Details of the mysterious payment came to light when liquidators Deloitte & Touche ( Cayman Islands ) issued a lawsuit last month. The documents do not explain what the $2,500,000.00 million was for.
David Marchant, the publisher of the Miami-based OffshoreAlert newsletter, said yesterday, "The questions that scream to be answered are, 'Why did EURO BANK CORPORATION pay the Cayman Islands government $2,500,000.00 million when the total fees for a Class A banking license are only $150,000.00 and where did the money go?'"
He added, "Also, the litigation suggests that EURO BANK CORPORATION was supposed to receive an unspecified benefit from the Cayman government as consideration for this payment. What was this benefit?" The complaint says that, in return for the payment, the Cayman government was supposed to do unspecified things for EURO BANK CORPORATION that then never happened.
The nature of the payment and the "consideration" is expected to be made public in the next month.
Mr. Marchant said, "If the Cayman Islands truly wants to become a more transparent jurisdiction, as it has indicated, this secretive payment to the government would be as good a place as any to start."
Reference http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bank-sues-over-curious-cayman-payment-631244.html
- - - -
Circa: 2002
[ NOTE: The following consists of excerpts copied from a 48-page Cayman Island Court case document, which now has edited-insertions provided by a private person who did some of the research (below ): ]
IN THE
GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CRIMINAL SIDE INDICTMENT
JUNE OF 2001
The Queen, Plaintiff
V.
Donald J. Stewart, Brian Cunha, Ivan Burges, and Judith Donegan, Defendant(s).
Before: Honorable Chief Justice Anthony Smellie
Date: 19DEC02
"...'we hereby seek disclosure of all notes, records, memorandum ( or other written record ) of contact between employees of the EURO BANK CORPORATION [ EBC ] and officers of FRU between 1995 and 1999 ( controllership ). The officers at the FRU [ Financial Reporting Unit, a Financial Intelligence Unit ( FIU ) ] who might be spoken to in this regard are Detective Inspector Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ], --- [ Edited-out by Court of the Cayman Islands ]. Were it to emerge that conversations or any other form of communications were entered into between FRU officers and employees of EBC in respect of relevant matters which were not thereafter or contemporaneously committed to writing, we would wish for a witness statement to be obtained from the FRU officers and for that witness statement to be made available to the defense'..."
"...'E. W. [ Edward Warwick ]...in late 1995 or early 1996, Mr. W [ Edward Warwick ] attended the offices of the FRU [ Financial Reporting Unit, a Financial Intelligence Unit ] and as a result...an arrest and prosecution resulted. The name of the suspect was David Bockius who held a company called Little Mermaid Holdings. We have a letter of thanks to the Bank [ FINSBURY BANK & TRUST ] relating to this which is attached to this memorandum...'..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...two persons, Igor Fyodorov [ Fyodor … ] and Michael Beasley (aka) Michael Elphick, whose names and accounts at EBC have emerged..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...The 'Intelligence' and W [ Edward Warwick ] material [ EURO BANK CORP. files ], both in the form in which he had had it delivered to him from London in late May - and in the altered form of his redactions upon it - had been kept in a binder in a secure cabinet in his office. In his evidence - on the voir dire - Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] said he had kept the redacted version there without disclosing it through the FRU [ Financial Reporting Unit, a Financial Intelligence Unit ( FIU ) ] database, despite the London Plan [ MI6 - Operation Victory ], because it was "too sensitive to be put on the Computer..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"At paragraph 1
'I [ Brian Gibbs ] sat down with W [ Edward Warwick ] and asked him to evaluate the position of EUROBANK [ EUROBANK CORP. (aka) EURO BANK CORP. (aka) EBC ] compared with FINSBURY [ FINSBURY BANK AND TRUST LTD. ] and GUARDIAN.
In his [ Edward Warwick ] opinion VICTORY is nowhere near as bad as GUARDIAN and slightly worse than FINSBURY [ FINSBURY BANK AND TRUST LTD. ].
We [ Edward Warwick and Brian Gibbs ] discussed his [ Edward Warwick ] disclosures under the PCCL [ Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law ] and I [ Brian Gibbs ] went over them with him [ Edward Warwick ].
He [ Edward Warwick ] is content that he [ Edward Warwick ] has legally disclosed them and is happy that they are used.
His [ Edward Warwick ] only reservation being, that they were not handed to F [ Fraser ] or H [ Harvey ] as the sole reason for any action taken against the bank. I must emphasize that I have not discussed [ with Edward Warwick ] this operation in detail.
I have of course discussed F [ Fraser ] and Burges and their misdeeds as he [ Edward Warwick ] perceives them.'
The significance in this context is that of an employee [ Edward Warwick ] being asked to evaluate [ assess by gauging comparisons to other banks Edward Warwick had worked ] the criminality of the bank [ EURO BANK CORPORATION (aka) EUROBANK CORP. (aka) EBC ] for which he [ Edward Warwick ] works [ currently worked at that time ]..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...In the 15th March 1999 memorandum [ of Brian Gibbs ] it reads:
At paragraph 3
'In Warlock's [ Edward Warwick ] opinion the only chance of disrupting the bank is for the Monetary Authority [ Cayman Islands Monetary Authority ] to take the lead and suspend the license.'
At paragraph 15
'Warlock [ Edward Warwick ]...saw it as the purpose of the Monetary Authority, but that they would have to be extremely strong and sure of their ground as any such action would not be taken lightly by Fraser [ "F" ] and certainly not by Harvey [ "H" ] ( both directors and shareholders ) who would do all he ( Harvey ) could to keep the bank alive'.
Further, at page 8 of the W [ Edward Warwick ] material, there is a report to London [ MI6 ] by Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] of information provided by W [ Edward Warwick ] referencing a suspected insider trader ( fraudster ) named Bekhor. That report is dated 3rd June 1996...the legislation [ Suspicious Activity Reporting ( SAR ) ], the PCCL [ Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law ], which would have permitted and required such a disclosure - without breaching the law and duty of confidentiality - did not come into effect until 23 December 1996..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"That W [ Edward Warwick ] was a clandestine source of information [ intelligence ] for Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] about the affairs of EBC [ EURO BANK CORP. (aka) EUROBANK CORP. ], its management and clients out with the context of the disclosure provisions of the PCCL [ Proceeds of Criminal Conduct Law ] or the Confidential Relationships ( Preservation ) Law, is in my view, clear. That he was so regarded by Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] and Gibbs' [ Brian Gibbs' ] controllers [ MI6 ] in London, is put beyond, per adventure, by the ascription to him [ Edward Warwick ] of the codename "Warlock" within the context of 'Operation Victory'..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...The same is true of the "intelligence" material which was perhaps even more 'sensitive' than the W [ Edward Warwick ] material. Gibbs' [ Brian Gibbs ] overriding imperative was the preservation of the confidentiality of the UKG [ United Kingdom Government - MI6 ] relationship. This, from what we now know of their agreed modus operandi [ MI6 Operation Victory in Cayman Islands ], was tantamount to the preservation of the relationship itself. His [ Brian Gibbs ] destruction of the 'intelligence' and W [ Edward Warwick ] material on 2nd July, was I find, in actuality the fulmination of his ongoing intention never to reveal it. I conclude that Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] deliberately failed to disclose and destroyed evidence which he knew to be highly relevant to this trial.
As to the intentions of John Doe [ at MI6 ], his controlling agent who instructed him [ Brian Gibbs ], the distinction to my mind is that as between a deliberate intention to destroy relevant evidence and recklessness as to whether that would happen..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...it is plain that the parties [ Brian Gibbs, his control agent, et al. ] to the London Plan [ MI6 - Operation Victory ] intended that Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] would have carried out further redactions before the W [ Edward Warwick ] material - and indeed any other of the London 'intelligence' material - was placed on the FRU database for disclosure.
Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the London Plan help to reveal this. They read:
'6. The intelligence will be compared to the FRU database. Insofar as that material is recorded, it will be shredded.
Insofar as the material is not on the database, it will be disclosed as intelligence held without source or method but only if relevant to the matters before the Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ].
7. The W [ Edward Warwick ] material will be reproduced on ( Gibbs' ) [ Brian Gibbs' ] computer and ( put ) there as his record of meetings with W [ Edward Warwick ].
W [ Edward Warwick ] will then be approached by WDF ( W's UK based solicitor ) [ Edward Warwick's United Kingdom based lawyer ] with ( W's ) [ Edward Warwick's ] current statements and deposition to be asked if ( he ) [ Edward Warwick ] can recall the extra material held by Brian Gibbs.
Prior to that, Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] will speak to W [ Edward Warwick ] to tell him [ Edward Warwick ] that he [ Brian Gibbs ] has got these records of things - that they [ Brian Gibbs and Edward Warwick ] had discussed over the years - and had noticed in reading his [ Edward Warwick's ] statement that we [ Brian Gibbs and Edward Warwick ] had not covered these issues. He [ Brian Gibbs ] would ask W [ Edward Warwick ] if he [ Edward Warwick ] would agree to meet with WDF [ Edward Warwick's United Kingdom based lawyer ] to have a further [ additional qualifying ] statement taken.'
Gibbs' [ Brian Gibbs' ] role, permeates these aspects of the London Plan [ MI6 Operation Victory in Cayman Islands ]..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...The prosecution was complicitous in the arrangement, as shown by paragraphs 6 & 7 of the London Plan [ United Kingdom MI6 intelligence operations conducted in the Cayman Islands ], by which the W [ Edward Warwick ] and 'intelligence' material was to be further redacted [ omitted from viewing ].
The only reasonable inference, and I am driven to the conclusion, was that it was agreed that Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] would redact it so as to 'remove any reference capable of disclosing the link' with the UKG [ United Kingdom Government ] agency [ MI6 ] and of the true light in which W ( "Warlock" ) [ MI6 code name assigned to Edward Warwick ] was regarded in that connection..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...I regret - I must conclude - as indeed did John Doe and Charles Jones ( the agency’s legal advisor ) [ the MI6 lawyer ] admit in their evidence - on the voir dire - that the London Plan involved a process by which this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] would have been inevitably misled as to the true provenance, custody, and composition of the W [ Edward Warwick ] and intelligence material.
While I have reserved - for after legal arguments - the final decision whether the London Plan inherently involved a breach ( in the technical legal sense ) of the prosecution’s duty of disclosure, I am compelled now to the conclusion expressed above. Mr. Mitchell [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] did urge me, to accept now, that there was nothing wrong with the London Plan - viewed as an expression of the prosecution's duty of disclosure as that duty was understood in May. He argued that as the details to be redacted were mere 'intelligence', details added on to the information obtained by Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] from W [ Edward Warwick ] or other sources [ ], those details were irrelevant and there could be no harm in redacting them.
The prosecution [ office of the Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] were then and remain of the view, that W [ Edward Warwick ] is not an informant - properly so called so they had been instructed by Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] - and there was therefore no need to identify that as a separate issue of concern in relation to the duty of disclosure, and the London connection [ MI6 ] was all 'upstream' [ beyond the scope of Cayman Islands jurisdiction ] the investigation of this case [ Court case in the Cayman Islands ]. Moreover, that the material was not in the prosecution's possession or control, and in order to fulfill their duty of disclosure it was better he [ Andrew Mitchell, prosecutor for the Cayman Islands government ] said to obtain the material in the redacted form than not at all. Against that background, said Mr. Mitchell, there was no need to seek this Court's [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] approval for not disclosing the information which was to be necessarily redacted, so also there was no need to bring to this Court’s [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] attention the relationship with the UKG [ United Kingdom Government ] agency [ MI6 ]..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...This, however is not an acceptance that the London Plan was a proper approach to the
prosecution's duty of disclosure. Far from it...Most obvious is the variance between his [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] acknowledged duty and the abject failure on his part to monitor developments so as to be able to fulfill it. Gibbs' [ Brian Gibbs ] withholding of the material could not have been achieved had Mr. Mitchell [ Andrew Mitchell ] actually checked to ensure that he was telling the truth. An obvious concern would have been to see the form and extent of the disclosure on the database. The failure to do this...is further indication of the lack of a proper case management system for the assurance of the prosecution's [ Andrew Mitchell ] duty of disclosure in this case.
Mr. Mitchell's reliance on the onerous scope and nature of the prosecution’s responsibilities in this case is unacceptable.
While this is a big and complex case, it has been so casted by the prosecution.
The prosecution's duty to ensure full and frank disclosure and the interests of a fair trial, as ministers of justice, do not diminish in proportion to the size of the case.
The larger and more complex the case the greater the need for vigilance.
Of equal significance is the equivocation in Mr. Mitchell's [ Andrew Mitchell, prosecutor for Cayman Islands government ] argument, that the London Plan called only for 'replication' on the FRU [ Financial Reporting Unit, a Financial Intelligence Unit ( FIU ) ] database by Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ], even while the Plan obviously involved – and as he acknowledged - redactions of text 'to give the appearance of having been kept there all along' and for the purpose of 'sanitizing' it of any connection with the UKG agency [ MI6 ]..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"For example, in both the 'sanitized' and 'fuller versions' presented to the Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] in the PII [ Public Interest Immunity ] application [ UK government MI6 arrangement for Edward Warwick ] on 19th and 20th November, the word 'operation' was redacted, along with further redactions, as this was presented to the Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] as 'the version to be disclosed to the defense', that process of redaction revealed in the 'sanitized' version must be regarded as that required from the point of view of the UKG agency [ MI6 ] and the prosecution in order to protect the London connection from disclosure, but even that redaction involved an important contextual change.
It was perhaps therefore, the only compelling moment of Mr. Mitchell's [ Andrew Mitchell prosecutor for Cayman Islands government ] submissions when he conceded, 'What I think I can properly say is this. If you found that the London Plan necessarily involved contextual changes then it was flawed. Then it was flawed - -' [ Edited-out by Court of the Cayman Islands ]. But Mr. Mitchell's [ Andrew Mitchell's ] submissions were not to be characterized by a spirit of concession. Nothing short of alarming was his [ Andrew Mitchell ] further submission, that had Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] disclosed the material as planned, but later, the provenance of that information - if the FRU database became relevant - the London Plan would still have been acceptable and would not have become false or misleading. This would be on the basis, said Mr. Mitchell, that the prosecution would simply have been able to diffuse any questions likely to arise as to the accuracy and reliability of the disclosed information and thus prevent any inquiry into the circumstances; by an admission as to its accuracy or inaccuracy, as the case might be!..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...The fallacy and danger of such a proposition in the context of Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] proceedings, still more in the context of a criminal trial, only have to be contemplated to be appreciated. In its very conception, I find, and as has been submitted by the defence, that the London Plan had committed the prosecution [ Cayman Islands government prosecutor office of Andrew Mitchell ] to a course of action that was inherently misleading, and required counsel [ Andrew Mitchell ] to represent to the Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] and to defense [ defendants' ] counsel a falsehood...The concern is that there should not have been a plan conceived in the first place which depended upon the Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] being misled..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...He [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] argued that 'the fact and content' of the W [ Edward Warwick ] material 'did not originate in London [ London, United Kingdom ] but in Cayman' [ Cayman Islands ] and that the 'material' only 'became a document after it was sent to London'. This, I am afraid, I must reject as mere sophistry...That would not have been true. The fact that the material had been compiled and kept in London [ London, UK ] meant that Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] would not have properly been able to - himself - vouch for its accuracy..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...An acceptance of Mr. Mitchell's [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] further submission...would be to afford him more benefit than he deserves from hindsight. Nowhere does the London Plan say that. Moreover, it is simply not apparent how that [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor plan ] could have been achieved when the intention - as it unfolded - was to leave Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] to the exercise 'without monitoring or supervision' from Mr. Mitchell or from anyone else on the prosecution [ Cayman Islands government office of the prosecutor ] team. This, Mr. Mitchell was also compelled to acknowledge, but on the basis as he [ Andrew Mitchell ] said that 'Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] was perceived to be a senior and trusted officer' [ of the United Kingdom Government MI6 agency ]. That, also falls pitiably short of a valid excuse for the prosecution's [ Andrew Mitchell's Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] failure.
In the result, and as already shown, the London Plan [ UK MI6 Operation Victory in the Cayman Islands ] - already misconceived - failed in the execution in being left to Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ].
I conclude that it involved the 'extra-judicial alteration of the state of evidence', which was recognized as relevant and disclosable, in this trial.
Moreover, as already recognized other approaches were available to the prosecution, that they were ( at the time ) aware of them is plain - from a plan of action - drawn up in the form of a flow chart by the Attorney [ Charles Jones, lawyer for MI6 ] prior to his [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] visit to the offices of the UKG [ United Kingdom Government ] agency [ MI6 ] in May.
That chart acknowledges ( as already noted ) that the prosecution [ Andrew Mitchell ] could have had the decision of the UKG [ United Kingdom Government ] agency [ MI6 ] 'judicially reviewed' [ Court ] in London [ London, United Kingdom ] on the basis that the material - in its non-redacted [ not omitted from viewing ] form - should have been disclosed to this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] for any proper redactions to be approved on the ground of PII [ Public Interest Immunity ].
The prosecution [ Andrew Mitchell, Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] could also have put the entirety of the London Plan before this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] when they applied for PII [ Public Interest Immunity ] protection on 24 May. At any rate, the entirety of it - as it stood - after the agency's [ MI6 ] earlier redactions...Gibbs would have been compelled to disclose the material as given to him, in whatever form this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] would then have ordered. There can be no doubt, that form would have been at least the full form, which so late in the day was ordered by this Court to be disclosed to the defence, even while protecting any proper PII [ Public Interest Immunity ] concerns.
Summary of main conclusions:
1. Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] destruction of the W [ Edward Warwick ] and 'intelligence' material on the 2nd July was the fulmination of his ongoing intention - since late May when that material was returned from London - never to disclose it to the defence.
2. Gibbs deliberately failed to disclose and knowingly destroyed that evidence which he was aware was highly relevant to this trial.
3. As to the intentions of John Doe, the agent [ of MI6 ] who instructed him [ Brian Gibbs ] to destroy the material, the distinction between his [ John Doe of MI6 ] and Gibbs' state-of-mind - at the time - was as between a deliberate intention to destroy relevant evidence and recklessness as to whether that would follow from his [ John Doe of MI6 ] instructions. I conclude that Doe [ John Doe of MI6 ] was at least reckless as to whether the material he [ John Doe of MI6 ] ordered to be destroyed, was still relevant material required for this trial.
4. Had the defense not persisted in their enquiry about the true status of W [ Edward Warwick ] as a witness, Gibbs' [ Brian Gibbs' ] deceptive suppression of the evidence might well have succeeded. The prosecution's [ Cayman Islands government prosecutor Andrew Mitchell ] failure to put in place a proper use management system and to ensure compliance by Gibbs would have allowed this to happen.
5. However, had the prosecution not responded, however late in the day, to the defense's and the Court's concerns, Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] would not have admitted to the destruction of the evidence and to his failure to disclose it.
6. The redactions [ information omitted from viewing ] made to the W. [ Edward Warwick ] material were substantial and contextual; capable of misleading the Court.
7. The London Plan involved a process and understanding by which this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] would have inevitably been misled as to the true provenance, custody and composition of the W [ Edward Warwick ] and intelligence material. The London Plan, from its very inception, had committed the prosecution [ office of the Cayman Islands government prosecutor ] to a course of action that was inherently misleading, and required Gibbs [ Brian Gibbs ] and prosecuting counsel [ Andrew Mitchell ] to represent to this Court [ Court of the Cayman Islands ] and to the defense [ defendants ], a falsehood.
8. Even while the prosecution considered that they were acting in good faith, the London Plan involved the extra-judicial alteration of the state of the evidence. That evidence was recognized as relevant to and disclosable in this trial.
Anthony Smellie
Chief Justice
Dated the 27th December 2002"
Reference http://web.archive.org/web/20030714115037/http://www.23essexstreet.co.uk/papers/CaymanFindingsFact-Jan2003.pdf
- - - -
CAYMAN NET NEWS
February 2003
'Warlock' Tight-Lipped
The British secret agent code-named 'Warlock' who was a chief witness in the failed EURO BANK trial is remaining tight lipped about his involvement in the case.
Edward Warwick is now safely back in Edinburgh, Scotland, but will not give away any details about his involvement in the investigation.
Speaking from his home, ironically based on Spylaw Road, he said: "I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss the matter further under the official Secrets Act.
"I can confirm that I was a witness in the case but that is all that I am prepared to say. I gave my evidence which is on the record," he told Cayman Net News.
The 'Warlock's' evidence was crucial to the money laundering trial which collapsed in spectacular fashion when the four (4) defendants walked free.
Warwick has lived and worked in the Cayman Islands for many years and last worked at EURO BANK where it was discovered in the trial which collapsed on January 14, that he was an informant to Brian Gibbs, head of the Financial Reporting Unit and an agent of MI6 an intelligence gathering agency in the United Kingdom.
Both Warwick and Gibbs have since left the Cayman Islands and returned to the UK.
The Caymanian community is up in arms about the trial's collapse and they have called for the resignation of Attorney General David Ballantyne.
Reference http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archive%20Articles/February%202003/Issue%20352%20Fri/Warlock%20Tight.html
- - - -
CAYMEN NET NEWS
January 16, 2003
And UDP Gov't Pledges No Confidence
Should the Attorney General refuse to resign, the United Democratic Party ( UDP ) Government will again request the Governor or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to remove him.
This was stated by UDP leader the Hon. McKeva Bush who said if it becomes necessary the Legislative Assembly will be asked to pass a motion of no confidence in the Attorney-General.
The full text of Mr. Bush's address:
Statement by the Leader of Government Business and Leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), the Hon. McKeeva Bush at a public meeting in George Town, Cayman Islands, on Monday January 20, 2003.
"The UDP Government in a short statement issued last Thursday night ( 15 January 2003 ) on CITN promised to keep the public updated as further matters came to light.
Since that time, your Government has been addressing various issues, a number of them appearing in the press. This is a further update on the events.
We have reviewed more carefully the written judgment of the Chief Justice handed down by him on 3rd January 2003 in which he reviewed the extraordinary evidence (given in the absence of the Jury) that emerged during the course of the EURO BANK trial between 5th November 2002 and 13th December 2002 and which judgment until 14th January 2003 was not released for publication.
We note that it was the findings made by the Chief Justice, in the light of the evidence that emerged, that led to the announcement on Monday and Tuesday of last week by the Attorney-General that the prosecution would be offering no further evidence against the four (4) persons charged with various criminal offences and whose trial started on 25th June 2002 and to the formal entry of verdicts of not guilty on each count of the indictment brought by the Attorney-General against the Defendants.
The findings of the Chief Justice based as they are on the evidence given in this case are unreservedly accepted by us and indeed they were also accepted by the Attorney-General when in announcing his decision to offer no further evidence, he said "if people had acted properly The Crown would not be in this position".
It is clear that improper action caused this trial to become the fiasco that it has turned out to be.
The Attorney-General was responsible for the FRU and is the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for whatever went wrong.
The content of the detailed findings of the Chief Justice causes us much concern and came as a complete surprise to us.
Despite the fact that extraordinary and disturbing evidence was being revealed at the trial as from 5th November 2002, the Attorney-General gave no indication whatever to Executive Council as to the alarming turn of events that were taking place and as to the consequences that could follow from it.
We were kept completely in the dark by him and while we understand that the details were to be kept in camera, we find it to be quite deplorable that no indication of problems was ever made to us.
The evidence that gave rise to the findings that were made by the Chief Justice is regarded by this Government as alarming and reprehensible.
Standing out amongst the wholly inappropriate actions of the prosecution team in the investigation and prosecution of this matter are:
1. The encouragement by Mr. Brian Gibbs, The Director of the Financial Reporting Unit to Mr. Edward Warwick to provide confidential information from the files of the Bank. This was in breach of Mr. Warwick's contractual duty of confidence and a criminal offence under the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law of the Cayman Islands;
2. The part played by the (unnamed) Agency of the United Kingdom Government in this prosecution and its interference with the Royal Cayman Islands Police inquiry into Gibbs which appears to have resulted in the deliberate destruction on the instruction of this Agency of documents that should have been disclosed to the defense;
3. The passing of information received by Gibbs in his capacity as Director of the Financial Reporting Unit to the Intelligence Agency in London apparently without the specific approval of the Attorney-General;
4. The apparent desire of the United Kingdom Government Agency to make this a "showpiece prosecution" from which it was essential that a conviction should result even if the rule of law and the obligation to ensure that the Defendants received a fair trial were infringed.
Apparently it was so vital to obtain a conviction that the code name "Operation Victory" was given to the enterprise and Edward Warwick who was to play secretly the role of an informer to Gibbs (who was the agency's man in Cayman) was given the code name "Warlock". It was part of the plan to keep both the Agency's involvement and Warwick's role as an informer secret so that Warwick could be put forward to the jury as a "paragon of banking virtue" and held up as an example of a prudent and upright Banker in comparison to the alleged illegal conduct of the Defendant Bankers which the prosecution would allege and did allege.
5. The entering into the agreement known as the "London Plan" which agreement according to the Chief Justice "involved a process by which the Court would have been inevitably misled as to the true provenance, custody and composition of the Warwick and intelligence material". The fact that the Attorney-General and the leading Counsel for the prosecution were persuaded to enter into such agreement by the Agency is disgraceful. It is clear from the Chief Justice's findings that they feared the complete collapse of the prosecution if they did not enter into it a result which has now taken place because of it. This was a clear interference by the United Kingdom Government Agency into the administration of justice in the Cayman Islands.
There can be no doubt from the findings of fact made by the Chief Justice and the decision of the Attorney-General to offer no further evidence against the accused persons, that it is unchallengeable:
(a) That there has been an abuse of the Court's process by the prosecution;
(b) That as a result of that abuse the Defendants could have been denied a fair trial;
(c) That there has been, at the very least, a grossly negligent approach by the prosecution to its duty of disclosure to the Court and to the Defendants; and,
(d) It is the inappropriate and improper actions of the prosecution and the investigative team that caused the collapse of the trial.
The Attorney General must accept the responsibility for the disastrous outcome to this prosecution and for the inept, inappropriate and improper handling of it. The Government expects to receive his immediate resignation.
The Attorney-General has previously displayed an unwillingness to indicate that he would be following Government's policy based on the intention of the Legislative Assembly that tax evasion should not constitute a predicate offence for the purpose of charging our financial providers with the offence of money laundering.
He also failed to give us any indication of problems with this trial; on what was being revealed as it progressed or as to the costs that were being incurred.
We have consequently lost confidence in the Attorney-General as Government's Chief Legal Adviser.
We have lost complete trust in him and we would hope that he would take the appropriate action of tendering his resignation.
Further consideration will be given as to what should be the proper course to be taken in relation to the disgraceful and improper conduct of Mr. Brian Gibbs, the Director of the FRU who has been found by the Court to be a liar and has emerged as a thoroughly untrustworthy and unreliable person.
One thing is, however certain; Mr. Gibbs will not be allowed to remain as the Director of a most important and sensitive organisation as the FRU.
That Unit will have to be cleansed of any improper philosophy and culture that he may have developed therein and will be completely restructured and organised without him.
That Unit should never have been removed from the supervision and direction of the Commissioner of Police to whom it properly belongs.
The course taken by the former Governor and the Attorney General, who were together responsible for removing the Commissioner of Police from the FRU, is regrettable and is a decision that should never have been taken or supported.
This strange arrangement was one, we are advised, which may be illegal and contrary to the Police Law. As you all will probably know, Mr. Gibbs left the Island shortly after our feelings on this matter were made known.
As to the Counsel selected and employed by the Attorney General to conduct this prosecution and upon whose advice he seems to have relied, this Government wishes to make it clear that they will not sanction the employment of either of those Counsel for any other proceedings or prosecutions brought by the Cayman Islands Government.
The full Order as to the costs which may flow from the abortive trial has not yet been announced and a further statement will be made by us on this aspect of the matter as soon as possible after the Order is made known and we are informed of it.
There are likely to be other financial and negative effects.
In spite of the fact that this prosecution has been a fiasco and one which was ineptly handled by the prosecution team, the Cayman Islands have nevertheless demonstrated to the world that we have an independent Judiciary who can be relied upon to give effect to the well known saying "let justice be done, if the heavens fall".
We have also shown to the world that we possess here a Judiciary to whom the Public can resort in confidence and be assured that effect will be given in a proper way to the rule of law and that a decision demanded by the evidence will result even if such a decision reflects adversely on persons in high places in the Executive.
The outcome of this case fully demonstrates that there is indeed a realistic separation of the Judiciary and the Executive in the Cayman Islands.
The Government intends to take the following steps:
1. To continue to call upon the Attorney General to resign, and to refuse to participate with the Attorney-General in the systems of the democracy which rely upon his leadership and advice;
2. If the Attorney General takes this course, which he ought in the circumstances to take, to ask the Governor to appoint the Solicitor General, Mr. Sam Bulgin to act as Attorney-General;
3. To request the acting Attorney General to consider and advise us as to whether Mr. Brian Gibbs or anyone else connected with this prosecution should be charged with any criminal offences;
4. If the Attorney General continues in his refusal to resign, to again request the Governor or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London to remove him. If it becomes necessary we will ask the Legislative Assembly to pass a motion of no confidence in the Attorney General. It should be noted that the Attorney General is recruited, employed and to a large extent directed by the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is within their power to secure his removal;
5. To request the Chief Justice to forward his findings of fact to the disciplinary organisations of the appropriate Bar Associations for their consideration as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate;
6. To remove Mr. Brian Gibbs as Director of the FRU and to return the supervision and authority over that Unit to the Commissioner of Police with a direction to him to restructure and reorganize that body;
7. To request the Governor to appoint a dependable and trustworthy financial reporting authority who can be relied upon to behave properly and who on receiving suspicious activity reports will decide which of them should be referred to the Commissioner for investigation by the FRU and action by them, if necessary;
8. To assist banks and financial institutions in whatever way we can to improve their security; to prevent infiltration by the likes of Mr. Gibbs and to remove any informers that may have been secretly placed within their organisations;
9. To seek advice on the legality of the distribution of information apparently made by Mr. Gibbs, and to ascertain the destination of that information, the reasons for its distribution and the use to which it is being put;
10. To examine and strengthen various laws to protect the privacy of personal information and the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, and to increase penalties for the illegal distribution of information by the authorities, law enforcement or otherwise. The Cayman Islands led the way with the introduction and implementation of some of the world's most progressive and stringent anti-money laundering legislation. Our commitment to this end has not been weakened by these events. We are also committed to see that this is achieved in accordance with the provisions of the statutes that we have passed and in an entirely legal, proper and unquestionable manner. We will continue to collaborate with the U.K. Government to achieve this end;
11. To ascertain:
(a) Whether Mr. Brian Gibbs was paid a salary by the United Kingdom's Government Agency; and,
(b) Whether anyone else in the Cayman Islands is on the payroll of the U.K Government Agency, and if yes, who;
12. To request the Governor to claim an indemnity from the U.K. Government in respect of the costs that have been incurred by our Government in pursuing this abortive trial and also in respect of any damages that may result therefrom;
13. To work in a constructive, calm and sensible manner with the Governor and the FCO to implement the necessary reforms which are essential to restoring the proper functioning of our democratic systems and to restore the confidence of our people and those who live and do business in and from our Islands; and,
14. We have noted the PPM call for an inquiry and we do not believe that sufficient thought was given to this aspect of their public statement. A fair and impartial tribunal headed by The Honourable Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, heard evidence and made findings of fact after the same was tested by our long established and accepted system of justice. His findings were accepted by the Attorney General and what is now necessary is remedial action and to this end, we the UDP have been hard at work.
This matter reaches beyond party politics and only by putting the same behind us and by working in a bipartisan manner, can our people be assured that their elected members will secure a bright future for them, their children and future generations.
We have no intention or desire of escalating this crisis further or to call or move towards independence.
We have urged the Governor and the FCO to initiate constructive dialogue to restore the faith and confidence in out democratic systems in such a manner that all may be ensured that the FCO have the interest of the people of the Cayman Islands at the forefront of their relationship with this territory, as it was in the distant but not forgotten past.
One of the lessons to be learnt from these unfortunate circumstances is that we must begin to place a greater degree of trust and confidence in our people and those that have lived here for years, contributed to our well-being and demonstrated that they have the best interests of the country and its people at the forefront of their minds.
To ensure this, we must secure the promotion to important positions of those among us who deserve the same.
As progress is made towards our ultimate goal as set out above and further information comes into our possession, the UDP Government will continue to deal effectively, calmly and sensibly with these events and to inform the Public of any new developments.”
Reference http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archive%20Articles/January%202003/Issue%20326%20Wed/And%20UDP%20Govt.html
- - - -
THE GUARDIAN - UK
Bungled MI6 Plot Led To Cayman Trial Collapse
by, Paul Lashmar
January 18, 2003
British intelligence has scored what appears to be an own goal in a remote part of the Caribbean.
An MI6 scheme to penetrate organized crime has instead enabled the defendants to walk free in a big money laundering trial in the Cayman Islands.
It has also led to the exposure of MI6's own supposedly highly secret intelligence operation there, codenamed Victory, and to a very public attack on Britain's spies by the tax haven's chief justice.
Four (4) defendants, believed to be expatriate Britons, were cleared and released by the chief justice Anthony Smellie on Tuesday after it emerged that MI6 had ordered the island's money-laundering officer to destroy evidence in an unsuccessful attempt to keep the agency's activities dark.
An MI6 controller in London had been compiling intelligence about suspect accounts belonging to U.S. fraudsters and the Russian mafia.
The "mole" was a local assistant bank manager, code-named Warlock.
According to court documents, his material was covertly passed on to MI6's London headquarters at Vauxhall Cross by the island's money-laundering officer, the former Metropolitan police detective Brian Gibbs.
At the grand court on the island, the chief justice told jurors there had been an "extraordinary turn of events". He issued a 47-page judgment criticizing Gibbs' relationship with an unnamed "UK government agency".
It is an open secret on the island, according to local sources, that he was referring to MI6 and - in London sources approached by the Guardian - made no attempt to deny it.
Mr. Smellie aborted the 6-month trial of officers and a director of the Cayman Islands-based Euro Bank Corporation on $25,000,000.00 million money-laundering charges, calling Gibbs' undisclosed relations with Warlock, a prosecution witness, an "abuse of process".
He said, "Gibbs deliberately failed to disclose and knowingly destroyed evidence which he was aware was highly relevant to this trial."
He had put his relationship with MI6 above his duties to the Cayman court.
The judge rejected Mr. Gibbs' claim that he had only shredded the files because he feared he was about to be raided by local police, who falsely suspected him of tapping the judge's phone.
He said, of MI6, "The protection of Gibbs as their operative and the anonymity of their operations in relation to this jurisdiction was more important to them both than the imperatives of a fair trial".
Mr. Gibbs did not respond yesterday to requests for comment.
David Marchant, editor of the Miami, Florida based OffshoreAlert newsletter, who has been monitoring the lengthy case said, "This is the latest in several fiascos involving the prosecution of offshore bankers in the Cayman Islands and further undermines confidence in the jurisdiction."
"It really is like something out of a James Bond movie that MI6 would instruct the leading anti-money laundering officer in the Cayman Islands to destroy important trial evidence prior to a search of his home," Marchant said.
The Foreign Office only comment, on MI6 problems, yesterday was to say that the UK and the Cayman Islands would continue to work together to tackle money laundering.
Reference http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/18/military http://www.paullashmar.com/news.php?extend.33
- - - -
THE GUARDIAN - UK
MI6 Role In Cayman Investigation Exposed As Austin Powers Farce
by, Paul Lashmar
January 18, 2003 / 00:49:00
The call from an MI6 controller in London to his top agent on the small island was electrifying: "Destroy everything that connects you to us!" Brian Gibbs unlocked his filing cabinet and reached for the shredder. But events that followed the dramatic phone call last July to Grand Cayman have since proved to be more like Austin Powers than James Bond. The sun-soaked Cayman Islands, a former haunt of pirates and turtle catchers tucked away in the Caribbean between Jamaica and Cuba, have a reputation for iniquity.
A short flight from the drug barons and tax dodgers of Miami, the islands' lucrative off shore industry has made them a magnet for organised crime. They claim to be the world's fifth largest financial centre, but the Caymans spent some time on an international blacklist imposed by the anti money laundering organisation Financial Action Task Force.
Britain, which is still the colonial power, has come under pressure in recent years to clean up the islands. And since the end of the cold war MI6 itself has found a new role gathering intelligence on drug-runners, organised crime and money launderers. The tragic comic story of this week's collapse of a major trial and the subsequent exposure of MI6's operations shows, however, how difficult the secret service still finds it to reconcile intelligence gathering with law enforcement. MI6 appears to have been desperate to hide its true role during the prolonged trial. For much of last year, lawyers and agent-runners were shuttled between London and George Town, the Caymans Islands' tiny capital. But they failed.
The saga began in 1999, when a US arrest led the Cayman's UK-appointed governor to close one of the local banks, the Euro Bank Corporation.
A bank client, Kenneth Taves, had been arrested in California and charged with masterminding a $25m credit card fraud. Investigations began into alleged personal payments he had been making to a British banker in the Caymans. A former Metropolitan Police detective, Brian Gibbs, director of CayFin, the Cayman Islands' financial reporting unit, played a key role in the investigations. But, unknown to many on the island, he was also working for MI6. In 2000 the Cayman authorities laid charges against nine people connected to the Euro Bank scandal. Four people still on the islands were brought to trial, Brian Cunha, Judith Donegan, Ivan Burges and Donald Stewart, who are all believed to be British expatriates.
But when the trial began a team of expensive QCs, including Michael Hill, former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, began to investigate the background of prosecution witness Edward Warwick, a EURO BANK assistant manager. They unearthed his role as an informant to the head of CAYFIN, in a trail that eventually led to MI6.
In a seven-page statement seen by the Guardian, Mr. Gibbs was forced to disclose some of his links. He said, "I first met Edward Warwick when he was employed at FINSBURY BANK & TRUST in the early 1990s, regarding a drugs inquiry, whereby monies had been fed through a company used by a drugs organisation in Thailand."
Mr. Warwick subsequently moved to work for Euro Bank. Chief justice Smellie said in his judgment this week, "It has now come to light that W [ Warwick ] was a long standing source of intelligence from within the bank. He was regarded as being of high value to Gibbs and the UK government agency within the context of the intelligence operation against [ EURO BANK ]. That operation was code-named Operation Victory and for the purposes of Operation Victory - as between Gibbs and his controlling agent... in London, W was assigned the code name Warlock."
As pressure mounted during the trial for Mr. Gibbs to reveal his mole, there was a bizarre development. The former detective claimed he discovered that the Royal Cayman Islands police - a separate body - were planning to execute a search warrant against the head of CAYFIN, saying that they suspected that he was tapping the telephone of the chief justice. Mr. Gibbs claimed there were no grounds for such suspicions.
According to this week's judgment his London controller, an MI6 officer identified only as "John Doe", then told the CAFIN chief to destroy all evidence connecting him to MI6.
Mr. Gibbs says in his statement: "This was done in order to protect the confidentiality of my contact with the UK government. Accordingly, all records... relating to the UK were destroyed." But reaching for the shredder turned out to be an error of judgment. The defence counsel pushed for information and Mr. Gibbs was ordered to produce records of all his dealings with his informant. To help their man out of the crisis, MI6 constructed an elaborate scheme to return a censored version of the records Mr. Gibbs had originally sent to London. This could be produced as though it was a genuine CAYFIN document.
The plan didn't work. The records were contradictory and the deception unravelled.
His MI6 controller was eventually forced to testify to the Cayman court under the pseudonym "John Doe" and conceded Mr. Gibbs had destroyed evidence "completely and unquestioningly" on MI6 orders.
The judge decided to rule that efforts by Mr. Gibbs and MI6 to hide the intelligence files fatally prejudiced the case against the EURO BANK defendants. And this week the judge completed MI6 embarrassment by pointing up the clash between the "James Bond" ethos and the rules of the courts with, "The decision to allow Gibbs to inhabit the shadows without having to appear in the searching light of this case encouraged and indeed, in my view, emboldened him in his misplaced sense of priorities for his relationship with the UKG agency to the point - as the examination of the circumstances will show - of placing his own position and that of the UKG agency above his duties to this Court, and above his duty to ensure that the defendants received a fair trial."
Reference http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/18/military1 http://www.paullashmar.com/news.php?extend.33
- - - -
GOTOCAYMAN.COM
News
January 2003
The main news item of the month has to be the collapse of the EURO BANK trial. On 14th January, the Chief Justice Anthony Smellie, instructed the jury to return "Not guilty" verdicts against and all four (4) defendants – bankers Donald J. Stewart, Brian Cunha, Ivan Burges and Judith Donegan – of all charges. This followed after the Attorney General, Mr. David Ballantyne, had indicated that no more evidence brought in the case.
The trial followed a 3-year investigation into the collapse of the EURO BANK CORPORATION, which was suspected of laundering money for organized crime in the U.S.
The defendants, all former bank employees, were alleged to have aided a Californian con-man who staged at £15,000,000 million credit card fraud.
The trial started in June 2002, in a purpose-built computerized courtroom costing nearly CI$300,000.
Much of the last month of the trial had been held "in camera" ( without the jury present ) whilst legal arguments were presented. The judge became worried that his telephone was being bugged, although he had no evidence to back this up.
Brian Gibbs, a former Scotland Yard detective, and director of the Cayman Islands Financial Reporting Unit ( FRU ) since 1990, was responsible for preparing much of the evidence for court. During the trial, it emerged that Gibbs had sent some documentation to London to MI6 ( the UK equivalent of the CIA ). He had been one of their agents since 1991, reporting suspicious transactions to them for a salary of £1,000 per month.
When the defence requested to see some of the documents that Gibbs had sent to London, MI6 blocked the request ( without the judge's knowledge ). This decision was endorsed by David Ballantyne, and it was agreed after a meeting between Ballantyne, Gibbs and MI6 that any material released would be made to look as if it had been in the FRU files all along.
During the trial a witness, Edward Warwick, made some comments about meetings / conversations he had had with Gibbs. The upshot was that the Chief Justice ordered Gibbs to make a statement. Gibbs was then cross-examined by the defence attorneys, and four (4) statements and several days later the "truth" slowly emerged.
Gibb's London controller discovered that the Cayman Islands police were going to search Gibb's home, to investigate Justice Smellie's bugging allegations, and ordered Gibbs to destroy any paper work he may have had that would reveal his London connection.
During the trial, witness Edward Warwick made some comments about meetings / conversations he had had with Gibbs. The upshot was that the Chief Justice ordered Gibbs to make a statement. Gibbs was then cross examined by the defence attorneys, and four (4) statements and several days later the "truth" slowly emerged.
The Chief Justice made his ruling in a 47-page report in which he said Gibbs "deliberately failed to disclose and destroyed evidence which he knew to be highly relevant to the trial."
The director of the FRU has now resigned and left the islands because, as the Governor Mr. Bruce Dinwiddy explained, "because of a potential risk to his personal safety".
This has led to the Leader of Government Business, McKeeva Bush to retort, "the statement that Mr. Gibbs' personal safety was ever at risk in the Cayman Islands is completely untrue in addition to being unwarranted and highly irresponsible in respect of the reputation of this country."
There are calls for the Attorney General to be sacked, and for an investigation into the way FRU and Attorney General's offices are run.
The Cayman Islands government was ordered to pay the court costs of the defendants, so far totalling over CI$2,300,000 million.
The four (4) defendants are now enjoying their freedom. For the last 3-1/2 years they have been banned from leaving the island.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Reference http://www.gotocayman.com/index.php?title=News2003&printable=yes
- - - -
TAXNEWS.COM
Caymanian Attorney General Tenders Resignation
by, Amanda Banks – London, UK
March 7, 2003
The Attorney General of the Cayman Islands, David Ballantyne has tendered his resignation, effective March 15, it emerged this week.
Following a no-confidence motion against the AG [ Attorney General ] over his role in the collapse of the EURO BANK money laundering trial, Mr. Ballantyne had - albeit briefly - returned to Cayman after a period of leave to resume his duties, although without the approval of the Caymanian authorities.
In an open letter released on Tuesday, Mr. Ballantyne announced that:
"Under other circumstances I would have been prepared to continue. Recent events, however, and the way in which they have been handled have led to a situation where I have decided, on terms acceptable to me, to leave office."
A government statement published this week revealed that the 'terms acceptable' to Mr. Ballantyne are a lump sum payment of CI$295,900 as compensation for the 2-years left to run on his contract, and end of contract entitlements regarding passage and freight.
This compromise between the two parties is believed to be the result of a visit in February from Baroness Valerie Amos, Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for the Overseas Territories.
Reference http://web.archive.org/web/20030429080938/www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=11068
- - - -
Circa: 2004
[ NOTE: In re: Cayman Islands Chief Justice Anthony Smellie 2004 lecture ( immediately below ) on EURO BANK CORPORATION criminal case and defendants' defense counsel Michael Hill who died on 19AUG03. ]
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
"...In selecting that issue, none seemed more appropriate than that which often beleaguered the EURO BANK trial, adding no doubt to its complexities and length but from which Michael never shrank nor faltered, the undeniable toll upon his declining health notwithstanding: by this we mean the prosecution's duty of disclosure.
The question just exactly what is that duty of disclosure, was raised in various forms throughout the trial. So, for instance the issue arose – was there a duty to provide copies of working drafts of witness statements which showed the development and thought processes which go into the final statement?
That became an important issue in that complex case because the drafts revealed in important respects a number of changes of opinion by an expert witness - the Liquidator [ Deloitte & Touche ] of the bank – as he examined the records of the bank from the point of view of the allegations in the indictment. Yet the drafts were not revealed until well into the trial and well after he had commenced his testimony, because according to those responsible, the view had been expressed that there was no Cayman Islands rule or practice requiring them to do so.
There were issues over the duty of the prosecution to provide the defence with copies of, or access to, unused materials – whether that duty extended to materials in the custody of the Liquidator and so not within the immediate control of the prosecution, although the prosecution had had full access to it.
There were still further disclosure issues and these combining in the ultimate failure of the prosecution to fulfill its obligations in respect of them, resulted in the dismissal of the indictment..."
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Reference http://www.radiocayman.gov.ky/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/CILSCONTENT/YEAR4/CJ'S+PAPER+ON+DISCLOSURE.PDF
- - - -
Circa: 2005
EURO BANK CORPORATION IN LIQUIDATION
Welcome to the Euro Bank Corporation ( in liquidation ) Web Site
I.A.N. Wight and M.W. Pilling, joint liquidators - Deloitte & Touche
UPDATE
April 25, 2005
To All Concerned
LIQUIDATION OF EURO BANK FORMALLY CONCLUDED
Following the completion of all aspects of the liquidation, Ian Wight and Michael Pilling of Deloitte Cayman Islands, joint liquidators of Euro Bank Corporation, were formally discharged as liquidators of the Bank by order of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands at a hearing held in George Town Grand Cayman on April 13, 2005.
The Court also ordered that the bank's documents, other than those required by the Attorney General of the Cayman Islands in relation to ongoing criminal proceedings, be destroyed by May 11, 2005.
These orders bring to a close the liquidation of EURO BANK, which commenced on June 16, 1999 and which has attracted considerable interest from many different parties both in the Cayman Islands and overseas.
The liquidators are pleased to report that recoveries in the administration were sufficient to pay to all of the bank’s depositors and creditors total dividends of 100 cents in the dollar plus interest, with a surplus available to the shareholders.
Regards,
Ian Wight
Joint Liquidator
Michael Pilling
Joint Liquidator
This page has been visited 56,030 times
Reference http://www.eurobank.ky
- - - -
[ NOTE: The ‘same P.O. Box address’ of EURO BANK CORPORATION was used by Edward Warwick for PROCRASS CORPORATION in a August 9, 1999 U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION filing ( immediately below ) for NEWLANDS OIL & GAS CO. [ Nevada corporation operating out-of 750 West Pender Street - Suite 604, Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA ] (aka) PC-EPHONE LTD. [ 129 Front Street Hamilton, BERMUDA ] during the ‘same time’ DELOITTE & TOUCHE announced publicly from July 19, 1999 thru May 15, 2008 that the Cayman Islands government had appointed it [ DELOITTE & TOUCHE Cayman Islands ] Liquidator who was receiving ‘all mail at the same P.O. Box address’ ( see further above ) while handling the liquidation of EURO BANK CORPORATION. ( see below ) ]
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Company: PC-EPHONE INC. (aka) PC EPHONE INC.
SEC Filing: 10SB12G/A
Filing date: August 6, 1999
Type of File: EXHIBIT 10.2
PROCRASS CORP.
P.O. Box 1792
Anderson Square
George Town
GRAND CAYMAN
British West Indies
NEWLANDS OIL & GAS INC.
750 West Pender Street - Suite 604
Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1G8
CANADA
Mr. Allen Sewell, President
July 1, 1998
RE: ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Dear Mr. Sewell:
This letter will set forth the terms and conditions of our agreement by which NEWLANDS OIL & GAS INC., hereinafter referred to as NEWLANDS will engage PROCRASS CORP., hereinafter referred to as PROCRASS, as a consultant and coordinator for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of a Private Placement, hereinafter referred to as PP, or a Joint Venture, hereinafter referred to as JV.
PROCRASS proposes to assist in the structure of a Preferred Convertible Stock.
NEWLANDS agrees to engage PROCRASS to coordinate certain components of the PP or JV program for NEWLANDS.
Included in the services to be provided by PROCRASS are the following:
A) PROCRASS will consult with securities professionals to evaluate the capital needs of NEWLANDS and advise on the best means available for structuring the Offering;
B) PROCRASS will consult with a securities attorney, in preparation of the Offering and disclosure documents. NEWLANDS agrees to provide all information and documentation as required for the completion of the Offering;
C) PROCRASS will undertake to raise on a "best-efforts" basis, $1,500,000 for NEWLANDS;
D) PROCRASS will advise and coordinate with NEWLANDS in the preparation of all accounting information required for the capital-raising program; however, NEWLANDS agrees to be responsible to provide the necessary financial and accounting documentation. NEWLANDS further agrees to provide all such information in an expedited manner; and,
E) PROCRASS will prepare and print the PP documents or JV agreement.
PROCRASS can make no guarantee and NEWLANDS acknowledges that there is no guarantee that the Offering can be completed in any required time frame due to current market conditions.
NEWLANDS agrees to pay a turnkey amount of forty five thousand dollars ( $45,000.00 ) to PROCRASS for the services to be rendered. The turnkey fee will be payable in advance and is non-refundable.
NEWLANDS agrees that the above mentioned turnkey fee covers the cost and expenses said costs and expenses herein are defined as, but not limited to, coordination, administration costs, packaging, printing, consulting, due diligence, travel and any other expenses deemed necessary by PROCRASS in connection with the Offering.
Upon execution of this Agreement and receipt of the required payment, PROCRASS will proceed to immediately evaluate NEWLANDS and verify the initial information and documentation prepared and presented by NEWLANDS to PROCRASS. Furthermore, PROCRASS shall immediately commence with the preparation of NEWLANDS disclosure documents for submissions to potential investors. The responsibility for the full and accurate disclosure shall at all times remain that of NEWLANDS.
NEWLANDS agrees to make available at all times to PROCRASS, for the purposes of due diligence of NEWLANDS and its operations and preparation of the Offering, all of NEWLANDS books, records, files, agreements and other documents as deemed necessary by PROCRASS, as well as direct access to NEWLANDS officers, directors and key personal. Should there occur any event which would have a material effect upon NEWLANDS business, operations, properties or prospects, NEWLANDS shall promptly advise PROCRASS.
NEWLANDS on behalf of itself and its officers and employees hereby agrees that the corporation, division, subsidiaries, employees, agents or consultants will not make any contact with, deal with, or otherwise involve in any transaction with any Broker/Dealer, institution, trust, corporate or individual and investors introduced by their association with PROCRASS or its agents, without written permission from PROCRASS.
This agreement is a perpetuating non-circumvention and non-disclosure guarantee for a period of one (1) year from the date of execution of this agreement and is to be applied to any and all transactions entertained by NEWLANDS.
NEWLANDS further acknowledges receipt of a copy of this agreement and that the person signing has the legal and proper authority to execute same. Furthermore, this agreement automatically voids any and all contracts or agreements signed prior to this agreement and is agreed to be retroactive to said date by all parties.
This agreement contains the entire understanding of all parties and the undersigned are in agreement that there are no other representations made or obligations accrued except as specified in the terms of this agreement. Said terms may not be amended or altered except in writing, dated and signed by both NEWLANDS and PROCRASS, with reference being made to this agreement.
If the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding and agreement, please indicate your acceptance by signing in the place provided below and returning to PROCRASS.
Sincerely,
Edward Warwick
--
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
NEWLANDS OIL & GAS INC.
By: /s/ Allen Sewell
Date: July 1, 1998
Allen C. Sewell
President
Reference http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.6sn.a.htm
- - - -
Research ( basic )
PC-EPHONE INC. [ 15DEC00 - Nevada, USA ] (aka)
PC EPHONE INC. [ Nevada, USA ] (aka)
PC-EPHONE LTD. [ 129 Front Street Hamilton, BERMUDA ] (aka)
PC-EPHONE CANADA ENTERPRISES INC. [ British Columbia, CANADA ] (aka)
NEWLANDS OIL & GAS INC. [ 17JUN98 - Nevada corporation - 750 West Pender Street - Suite 604, Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA ]
Company Address: 5375 Mira Sorrento Place - Suite 290, San Diego, California 92121, USA, TEL: (858) 550-2020.
Company Address: 3440 Wilshire Blvd. - Suite 515, Los Angeles, California 90010, USA.
“...We are a convergence technology company. We were originally formed to explore and develop oil and gas properties. On August 18, 2000 we abandoned the oil and gas exploration business and began to pursue opportunities in the wireless convergent technology market...”
“...By a distribution agreement dated November 6, 2000 and amended February 8, 2001 with CYBERBANK CORP., a Korea corporation, PC-EPHONE LTD. [ BERMUDA ] was granted the exclusive right to market, distribute, and sell the PC-EPHONE within the United States and Canada. On April 12, 2002, the distribution rights were transferred to PC-EPHONE INC., the Nevada corporation. In consideration for these rights, PC-EPHONE INC. issued 3,500,000 shares of common stock valued at $2.70 per share to CYBERBANK CORP. for total non-cash consideration of $9,450,000 million. PC-EPHONE INC. also granted CYBERBANK CORP. warrants entitling CYBERBANK CORP. to acquire 2,500,000 shares of common stock at $3.20 per share. In addition, PC-EPHONE LTD. [ BERMUDA ] agreed to issue two (2) binding purchase orders to CYBERBANK CORP. for a total of $25,300,000 million to be paid with cash of $2,000,000 million and letters of credit totaling $23,300,000 million. During August 2001, PC-EPHONE INC. issued nine (9) convertible promissory notes in exchange for $550,000 thousand of which $500,000 was received from 1 director, 3 shareholders, 1 relative of a shareholder, and 3 employees of PC-EPHONE INC. and of which $232,500 was converted from advances payable. On November 8, 2001 PC-EPHONE INC. received bridge financing from CYBERBANK CORP. in the amount of $190,000 in the form of a subordinated convertible debenture (the " CYBERBANK Debenture") providing for a total aggregate amount of up to $700,000 to the Company...The CYBERBANK Debenture is subordinate to the bridge loan from PROCESS CONTROL HOLDINGS LTD. [ REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ] dated April 8, 2002...”
PROCESS CONTROL HOLDINGS LTD.
Carlow
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Company Stock Holder: CYBERBANK CORP., Mirae Building - 18th Floor, 1306-6 Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-070, KOREA
CUSIP Number: 693187 10 6
SEC filings ( 11JUN99 - 04NOV02 ): 40
Reference http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.6sn.a.htm http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.6sn.b.htm http://www.secinfo.com/d13gFq.3By.htm http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.613g.a.htm http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze2u.3q.htm
- -
EURO BANK CORPORATION IN LIQUIDATION [ 19JUL99 - 2005 ]
PROCRASS CORP. [ earlier <--, 09AUG99, 06JUN00, etc. ]
EURO SECURITIES LTD. [ Circa: 01MAR98 ]
WALWORTH TRUST [ Circa: 12MAY97 ]
EURO BANK CORPORATION [ Established: 1987 / Republic of Nauru ( 13OCT98 - 27MAR03 ) ]
Anderson Square Building - 5th Floor
P.O. Box 1792
George Town
KY 1-1109
GRAND CAYMAN - BW 1
British West Indies
TEL: (345) 949-5855
TEL: (345) 949-8721
WWW: http://www.eurobank.ky
- Fraser (lnu ) - Director and Stock Share Holder
- Harvey (lnu ) - Director and Stock Share Holder
- Donald J. Stewart - Managing Director and Stock Share Holder [ citizen of Canada ]
- Edward Warwick -
- Ivan Burges - Senior Assistant Manager [ 15MAR94 ]
- Donald J. Stewart
- Brian Cunha
- Judith Donegan
- Linford Ainsworth Pierson - President ( 1987 - 1994 ) [ DOB: 1941; former member of the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly and Cayman Islands Executive Council ]
- Roger Duffield - Stock Holder
--
- EURO SECURITIES LTD. [ QUIET TIGER INC. stock share holder, Circa: 01MAR98 ]
- Roger Duffield [ QUIET TIGER INC. stock share holder, Circa: 01MAR98 ]
- Donald Stewart [ QUIET TIGER INC. stock share holder, Circa: 01MAR98 ]
--
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Filings: 19APR07 – 28APR98
- MEDIAMAX TECHNOLOGY CORP. (aka)
- FAN ENERGY INC. (aka)
- QUIET TIGER INC.
Phoenix, Arizona
Denver, Colorado
Reno, Nevada
--
Circa: 18APR98 - 18MAY01
- QUIET TIGER INC. [ Donald J. Stewart ]
- FAN ENERGY INC. [ Donald J. Stewart ]
- MEDIAMAX TECHNOLOGY CORP. [ Donald J. Stewart ] CUSIP No.: 306907 10 6 - SCHEDULE 13D
- EURO SECURITIES LTD. is controlled by EURO BANK CORPORATION, a bank in Georgetown, Grand Cayman Island, British West Indies, of which Donald J. Stewart is a director. Mr. Stewart has no other relationship with, or control over, EURO SECURITIES LTD.
- FIRST HOLDING COMPANY TRUST is a Trust of which Carolyn Grafham is the beneficiary. Donald J. Stewart and David W. Grafham [ Calgary, Alberta, Canada ] are Co-Trustees of the Trust. Includes exercisable warrants to purchase up to 1,230,000 shares. (8) Includes 88,000 exercisable warrants. Also includes 1,365,000 shares and 1,800,000 exercisable warrants held by two (2) Trusts for which Mr. Stewart is Co-Trustee, of which beneficial ownership is disclaimed.
- SEVEN MILE HOLDINGS Co-Trustee Donald J. Stewart.
Donald J. Stewart (aka) Don Stewart [ citizen of Canada ]
7 Memorial Avenue
P.O. Box 2043
GRAND CAYMAN
British West Indies
TEL: (345) 949-2568
Donald J. Stewart (aka) Don Stewart [ citizen of Canada ]
P.O. Box 245
George Town
GRAND CAYMAN
British West Indies
Reference(s) http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Filings.asp?AN=0001021890-98-000044&Find=Euro&Page=1&List=Docs&Show=Each http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Filings.asp?CIK=1057024&Find=Stewart&Page=All&List=Hits&Show=Each http://www.secinfo.com/dV5ud.4f8G3.htm?Find=Stewart&Line=158#Line158 http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Filings.asp?CUSIP=306907106
- -
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Filing: DEF 14-C
Filing Date: 12MAY97
AMERISTAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CORP.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
KESTREL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Lavaterstrasse 45
Zurich 8022
SWITZERLAND
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
(2) The natural person who is identified as the controlling shareholder in KESTREL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, in a Form 13-D filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, is Michael Harrison, 133 Ebury Street, London SW1, England. The Company has been informed that the controlling person with respect to the WALWORTH TRUST is EURO BANK CORPORATION as Trustee, P.O. Box 1702, Grand Cayman, British West Indies. The Company has been further informed that the Managing Director of EURO BANK CORPORATION is Donald J. Stewart, P.O. Box 1792, Grand Cayman, British West Indies. EURO BANK CORPORATION is a private corporation, and the Company has been informed that the identities of its shareholders are confidential. It is a licensed bank and trust company in the Cayman Islands.
Reference http://www.secinfo.com/dsVsf.849g.htm
--
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SEC Filing: 8-K
Filing Date: 04AUG97
AMERISTAR INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CORP.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
SECTION 5. Conditions to Obligations of Purchaser. (e) Certificates. (ii) The Purchaser's attorneys in the Cayman Islands, Messrs. Maples and Calder, shall have received from EURO BANK CORPORATION ( a bank authorized to carry on banking; business in the Cayman Islands ) confirmation in terms satisfactory to them that the bank has custody of the Hanger Certificates and transfers thereof in favor of the Purchaser executed by the Seller, a certificate for 100% of the share capital of LANGER in the name of the Purchaser, the corporate books and records of LANGER, including the Register of Members of LANGER showing the Purchaser as the holder old all the issued share capital of LANGER and signed resignations of LANGER's officers.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
SECTION 7. Closing And Post Closing Issued. (c) the confirmation given by EURO BANK CORPORATION pursuant to Section 5 paragraph (e) of this Agreement shall forthwith become creative so that immediately upon closing the LANGER Documents shall be held by EURO BANK CORPORATION for the sole benefit and to the order of the Purchaser.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Reference http://sec.edgar-online.com/1997/08/04/17/0000950144-97-008488/Section3.asp
--
1952 - 2005
CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW REPORT
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Banking
Control of Banks
- Appointment of receiver-manager by Governor Governor's appointee under Banks and Trust Companies Law 1989, s.14(1) authorized by Governor's directions to assume control of bank's affairs and report to him — further action requires application to court: FINSBURY BANK & TRUST CO. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (C.A.), 1996 CILR 349;
- Governor's appointee under Banks and Trust Companies Law 1989, s.14(1) to assume control of bank’s affairs cannot act without seeking directions from court: IN RE FINSBURY BANK & TRUST CO. (Grand Ct.), 1994–95 CILR 531;
- Liability for fees — Governor entitled to reimbursement by bank in respect of fees incurred by person appointed to assume control of bank's affairs under Banks and Trust Companies Law 1989, s.14(1): IN RE FINSBURY BANK & TRUST CO. (Grand Ct.), 1994–95 CILR 531; and,
- Liability for fees — Governor entitled to reimbursement by bank in respect of fees reasonably incurred by appointee under Banks and Trust Companies Law 1989, s.14(1): FINSBURY BANK & TRUST CO. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (C.A.), 1996 CILR 349.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Incorporation Of Other Statutes
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
- Provisions of incorporated statute to be interpreted to conform with and not defeat overall purpose in incorporating statute — 'appointee' under Bank and Trust Companies Law 1989, s.14(1) 'may assume control of bank' and report to Governor 'without application for court's directions' required by incorporated provisions of Bankruptcy Law ( Revised ), s.18: FINSBURY BANK & TRUST CO. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (C.A.), 1996 CILR 349.
. . . [ EDITED-OUT FOR BREVITY ] . . .
Reference http://www.caymanjudicial-legalinfo.ky/Judgments/Cayman-Islands-Law-Reports/1952-2005%20Subject-Matter%20Index.pdf
--
See, also:
- THE VICTORY DEVELOPMENT BANK INC.
- GUARDIAN BANK & TRUST CO. LTD.
- - - -
Submitted for review,
Unwanted Publicity, Host
E-MAIL: 
UnwantedPublicity@Gmail.com
WWW: http://groups.msn.com/UnwantedPublicity
Those interested in replying to this report should place the word “INTELL” in their e-mail “Subject:” line to receive replies. Unwanted Publicity Information Group Media Division [ http://www.UnwantedPublicity.Com ].
/
/
- END
e-mail:: UnwantedPublicity@Gmail.com
homepage:: http://www.UnwantedPublicity.Com