The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Resorts World Bimini’s original developer has been accused by his son-in-law of perpetrating a “two-decade tax fraud and evasion” against the Government and Bahamian people involving “millions of dollars” in unpaid VAT and other obligations.

Rafael Reyes, in a May 21, 2026, lawsuit filed with the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court is alleging that Gerardo Capo, who spearheaded the previously-named Bimini Bay development, and one of his corporate entities were forced to agree a formal repayment plan with the Bahamian tax authorities after “sufficient irregularities” were uncovered during a VAT audit.

Mr Reyes, who would have had inside knowledge of such developments prior to the acrimonious December 2025 split with his father-in-law, claimed in legal documents obtained by Tribune Business that Mr Capo treated companies he owned and controlled as “alter egos” by constantly moving funds and assets between them in a bid to escape tax liabilities due to the Bahamian Public Treasury.

In particular, he is alleging that Mr Capo recorded “fictitious and unsupported transactions” in the accounting records of RAV Bahamas, the entity that developed Bimini Bay before becoming Genting’s minority partner in its transformation into Resorts World Bimini, and OPAC Bahamas. The latter is a construction and project management company, also controlled by Mr Capo, which developed other Bahamas-based projects such as the Treasure Cove gated community in eastern New Providence.

And Mr Reyes, who claims to have served as RAV Bahamas president for more than a decade, is also asserting that his father-in-law’s companies employed schemes such as deferring revenues beyond the period in which they were earned, as well as generating “artificial expenses”, to avoid and under-state taxes plus National Insurance Board (NIB) contributions and Immigration-related fees.

The tax evasion allegations are part of a wider lawsuit in which Mr Reyes is seeking more than $20m in damages over claims that Mr Capo and his companies have paid little to nothing in commission owed on $147m worth of Bahamas-based real estate sales located in Bimini. The 11th Judicial Circuit court case is one of several legal battles between the duo that remain ongoing in both The Bahamas and south Florida amid their bitter break-up and family feud.

However, Mr Capo is urging the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court to dismiss and strike-out the legal claim brought by Mr Reyes. The RAV Bahamas chief, in further legal filings obtained by Tribune Business, branded many of his son-in-law’s claims as “improper” and vehemently denied any wrongdoing, while asserting that the matter was “nothing more than a simple employment dispute”.

Arguing that dismissal of the entire case is justified because Mr Reyes is not licensed as a real estate broker or salesman in Florida, and therefore cannot claim the commission he asserts he is entitled to, Mr Capo also alleged that the claim lacked supporting evidence and specifics. He also suggested that, similar to how The Bahamas’ own Limitation Act works, many of his son-in-law’s allegations are time or statute-barred because they were not brought within the time limits set by Florida law.

Mr Capo then claimed that his son-in-law, by naming him as a defendant personally, was engaging in “a flagrant misuse of the litigation process” because Mr Reyes’ employment contract was with RAV Bahamas, a corporate entity. He argued that this was “a thinly-veiled attempt to harass” him and gain leverage in their ongoing legal battles.

Yet it is the tax-related claims that will likely attract most attention, with Mr Reyes naming both RAV Bahamas and OPAC Bahamas, both of which are Bahamian-domiciled and registered entities, as defendants. Besides failing to pay him his alleged commission, Mr Capo’s son-in-law is claiming: “Another aim of Capo’s alter ego structure was to commit tax fraud and evasion against the Bahamian government.

“To that end, Capo employed a host of financial manipulations and fraudulent schemes through these entities to avoid taxes, including recording fictitious and unsupported transactions in the books and records of RAV and OPAC; systematic deferrals of revenue that, in fact, had been earned so that such revenue would fall outside the applicable tax reporting periods; and substantial manipulation of inter-company accounts to generate artificial expenses at the revenue-generating level, thereby suppressing reportable income.”

Mr Reyes’ lawsuit gave no dollar figure for the amount of Bahamian taxes and fees that were evaded, but he added: “Over the course of two decades, these fraudulent tactics allowed RAV and OPAC to avoid paying millions of dollars that they owed in VAT, NIB contributions and Immigration-related fees and levies that were lawfully due and payable to the Government of The Bahamas.

“This fraud was partially confirmed through official governmental action, as the Bahamian government, following a VAT audit of OPAC’s books and records, discovered sufficient irregularities to compel OPAC to enter into a formal payment plan for the repayment of millions of dollars in unpaid VAT obligations.”

Mr Reyes’ lawsuit is claiming damages for alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and equitable accounting. While Mr Capo exercised control over Bimini Bay’s finances, he is alleging that - from 2011 onwards - he “spearheaded” the management, development and sales for Bimini Bay, the island’s so-called ‘anchor resort’ property prior to the tie-up up with Genting, the Malaysian gaming and hospitality conglomerate, that resulted in RAV Bahamas becoming a 22 percent minority owner.

Central to the Miami-Dade legal battle is Mr Reyes’ claim that his employment agreement entitled him to a 15 percent commission on the net proceeds generated by the sale of developed property, plus 10 percent on vacant land transactions. He alleges that he has yet to receive more than a pittance of this sum.

“RAV has been immensely successful in the Bimini Bay project, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate sales and generates millions in annual revenues through a casino resort and other attractions,” Mr Reyes’ lawsuit alleges.

“RAV generated $147m in sales during the term of Mr Reyes’ agreement stemming from well over 100 real estate transactions. Upon information and belief, based on those sales Mr Reyes has accrued, and is owed, compensation in excess of $20m. But RAV failed to pay anything but a tiny fraction of the amount Mr Reyes is owed.”

The latter alleged that the $147m was broken down into $32m generated from the sale of condominiums, single family homes and marina slips at Bimini Bay itself, plus a further $115m stemming from 45 high-end residences in the nearby Rockwell Island subdivision.

Mr Reyes is claiming that, every time he spoke to Mr Capo requesting payment, his father-in-law would state that RAV Bahamas “was not profitable and did not have sufficient liquidity” resulting in deferral of his compensation. The son-in-law alleged that he trusted Mr Capo “to his detriment”, and believed the latter was being honest, especially given that they were family as a result of his marriage to his step-daughter.

Turning to the relationship between Mr Capo, RAV Bahamas and OPAC Bahamas, Mr Reyes described the two companies as “alter ego entities” that were completely dominated by his father-in-law and featured commingled finances and “sham transactions” designed to deceive the Bahamian tax authorities and others “out of millions of dollars”.

He claims that “bogus management fees and fake loans” were among the techniques employed to shift funds from RAV Bahamas, which he asserts was profitable, to OPAC Bahamas. “Whenever RAV earned significant revenues from its operating activities - real estate sales, electricity department profits and profits from its marina, Capo would cause OPAC to submit or record fictitious invoices to RAV,” Mr Reyes alleged, resulting in his father-in-law stating the company was at a “break even” or a loss.

“Indeed, a RAV executive conceded that the company always carried a (fake) outstanding receivable to OPAC of approximately $10m-$15m so that on paper RAV could avoid its financial obligations to third parties… In truth, RAV was highly profitable during the relevant period….”