The Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

ALL of the money-laundering charges against former Urban Renewal Deputy Director Michelle Reckley and her four co-accused have been dropped.

Magistrate Ambrose Armbrister announced the decision Friday, citing that his court did not have the jurisdiction to hear a case related to the charges because they were not brought within six months of having occurred.

He said the court’s pursuit of those charges would represent an abuse of process.

The Crown has filed an appeal of the decision, saying the Magistrate “made serious and grave errors in Law” (see statement below).

As a result of the Magistrate's decision, Christopher Symonette, 57, Stefanie Collie, 28, Kylon Vincent, 26, and James Wildgoose were discharged.

Reckley, 50, now faces only 19 charges related to fraud, corruption and conspiracy.

She is accused of extorting $71,062.18 and allegedly engaging in corrupt deals valued at $230,000.

It is alleged that Reckley and Hall between Monday, December 5, 2016 and Monday April 24, 2017 conspired to defraud the government.

It is further alleged that the pair, between Friday, December 9, 2016 and Tuesday, April 25, 2017 defrauded the government of $1,255,637.83 via nine cheques.

The cheques were payments made out to Hall’s Distinctive Builders enterprise for contracts given under the government’s Small Homes Repair programme in the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew by means of false pretences, it is alleged.

Reckley is further accused of converting the sums of $30,000 on or about Wednesday, November 30, 2016; $11,062.18 on or about Friday, December 30, 2016; and $200,000 on or about Monday, March 20, 2017, to conceal that they were the proceeds of her criminal conduct.

She is also facing three extortion charges related to her receipt of $11,062.18 on or about Friday, December 30, 2016 from Symonette; $30,000 on or about Wednesday, November 30, 2016 and another $30,000 on or about March 20, 2017 from Hall.

As it relates to her two charges of corrupt transactions with agents, Reckley stands accused of accepting $200,000 on or about Monday, March 20, and $30,000 on or about Friday, November 30, 2016, as a reward for assisting Hall in obtaining a home repair contract and a contract for the repair of the Bartlette Hill Primary School respectively.

Conversely, the remaining charges against James Hall, 49, and Joseph Lightbourne, 40, will be pursued.

Hall now faces 11 charges in total, inclusive of two counts of corrupt transactions with agents, for his alleged payments to Reckley.

As for Lightbourn, his five counts of abetment to fraud will stand.

The trio are expected back in court on October 21 for trial.

APPEAL FILED

The Crown has filed an appeal of the Magistrate’s decision and released the following statement:

DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED PERSONS

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, wishes to assure the Bahamian Public that the Magistrate who discharged certain co-accused persons from certain Money Laundering Charges, in its view, made serious and grave errors in Law.

The law provides that an indictable offence has no statutory time limitation as set forth in section 213(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act (CPC).

Money Laundering is an indictable offence.  It is noteworthy, that in 2017, the CPC was amended to make it absolutely clear that an indictable offence is “any offence which is triable on information before the Supreme Court”, as per section 2 thereof.

Money Laundering is an indictable offence because it is triable on information before the Supreme Court.

The time limit of six months to lay charges before a magistrate’s court is only applicable to a strictly summary offence.

It so happens that Money Laundering is an indictable offence which may also be tried in the magistrate’s court, by a decision of the Crown, as provided for in section 58(8) of the CPC. The Crown elected to have the indictable matter tried summarily.

Further, it is the Crown’s view that the Magistrate erred in failing to find that Section 20 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act allows charges to be brought under a repealed Act in the circumstances provided for in the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.

In the aforementioned circumstances, the Crown has filed an appeal of the presiding Magistrate's decision based on, among other things, an erroneous application of the law. The Prosecutors are also requesting that The Court of Appeal hear the Appeal at the earliest possible opportunity.