The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Chief Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

A WOMAN who blackmailed a bank loan officer for allegedly misusing her personal funds to help pay her college fees, in violation of bank policy, had her two-and-a-half-year sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Jamia Newbold tried to appeal her extortion and attempted extortion convictions before Justices Jon Isaacs, Indra Charles, and Gregory Smith, but her bid was unsuccessful.

The charges stem from Newbold extorting $28,000 from Cleopatra Deal, the then loan manager at CIBC, by threatening to report her to management for sending personal funds to assist with her college fees in violation of bank policy.

Newbold met Mrs Deal in 2018 while asking about obtaining a student loan to attend Georgetown University in Washington for a year.

Although Mrs Deal assisted her with the loan application process, Newbold did not meet the loan requirements.

Ultimately, Mrs Deal decided against the bank’s policy to use her personal funds to finance Newbold out of generosity, as she reminded her of her daughter.

Between August and December 2018, Mrs Deal sent Newbold $45,996 to cover tuition, rent, and other expenses. No repayment method was ever discussed, and Mrs Deal cautioned Newbold that her actions could jeopardise her own job.

In January 2019, the loan was approved, but the amount was significantly less than what Newbold had requested. When Mrs Deal informed Newbold of this, she refused to cooperate and sign the required forms.

In May 2019, Newbold told Mrs Deal she was about to be expelled from college for unpaid tuition, which would adversely affect her ability to earn a degree, and therefore demanded $28,000.

She warned that if Mrs Deal failed to comply, she would report her.

Fearful of losing her job, Mrs Deal transferred $28,200 to Newbold’s account on July 11, 2019. Nearly a month later, Newbold demanded an additional $33,500 and threatened to initiate legal proceedings against Mrs Deal and the bank.

This prompted Mrs Deal to inform the bank about the situation, and she subsequently reported the matter to the police.

As a result, Newbold was arrested and charged with extortion and attempted extortion.

On March 1, she was convicted and sentenced to two years and six months after her trial before Senior Magistrate Carolyn Voght Evans.

Days later, Newbold challenged her conviction and sentence on eight grounds, arguing that inadmissible evidence had been wrongly admitted and that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

“Her case is that the monies she received were from the approved loan from the bank,” court documents noted.

She also contended that the sentence was unduly severe and “based on a wrong principle of law.”

In their ruling, the appellate judges noted that none of the eight grounds of the convicts’ appeal had merit.

“The Magistrate’s decision to convict the appellant on the charge of extortion was neither unreasonable in light of the evidence nor was the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory,” the court said. “The absence of a signed loan agreement and the continued receipt of personal funds supported the finding that the appellant knowingly extorted the complainant. The appellant was aware she did not have a loan, yet demanded money from the complainant using threats. Furthermore, the appellant exploited the complainant’s precarious situation, knowing the risk of job loss if the bank discovered the transpired events.”

Further to this, the appellate judges said they saw no reason to interfere with the magistrate’s sentencing decision, noting that the penalties were appropriate given the seriousness of the offences.