Smellie CJ
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
HOLDEN IN GEORGE TOWN, GRAND CAYMAN
IND. NO. 18 OF 2002
REGINA
- VS -
LEWIS DENTON ROWE
PATRICK THOMAS TIBBETTS
Ruling delivered by THE HONOURABLE
CHIEF JUSTICE SMELLIE on the 21st
day of June 2004, George Town, Grand Cayman.
APPEARANCES:
For the CROWN: MS. C. RICHARDS
MR. A. MON DESIR
For the DEFENDANT ROWE: MR. A. MALCOLM, Q.C.
INSTRUCTED BY MR. C. ALLEN
For the DEFENDANT TIBBETTS: MR. M. WOOD, Q.C.
INSTRUCTED BY MR. S. DICKSON
(RULING BY THE COURT)
THE COURT: The use of promissory notes by the defendants issuing them or having them issued to investors, being aware that they provided no real form of security is a relevant issue on this money-laundering indictment. This will be to the extent it may be permissible for the jury to find that that kind of use of the notes was deployed as a means of securing that investors' monies were put into and kept within the Cash 4 Titles' scheme, and thus continued to be made available to Messrs. Homa and Gause. In that context, these promissory notes issued to Mr. Black's clients would therefore be relevant to the money-laundering issues on the indictment. However, the real cause of Mr. Wood's complaint here, is the evidence to be given about these notes which suggests that they were deliberately falsified for an illegal or dishonest purpose; that is, so as to enable Black's clients, and implicitly with their knowledge and consent, to evade United States' taxes. That is a different issue from any which arises on the indictment. The Crown does not assert that the evasion or attempted
(RULING BY THE COURT)
evasion of United States taxes could be a predicate to the money-laundering offences alleged in the indictment.
This evidence to be given by Mr. Black, would point to the willingness of the defendant, Tibbetts, to falsify documents (if knowledge of what his employee did can be attributed to him as principal of Everest) as evidence that he was willing to do whatever Homa and Gause or any other important client of Cash 4 Titles would bid him to do. That, to my mind, is too broad and dangerous an allegation.
I conclude that while the fact of the existence of these promissory notes can be adduced, the witness may not be asked to give his views as to the reasons for the alterations of the interest rates from twenty percent to six percent. The fact that they appear to have been issued with such impunity without regard to whether they provided any form of real security would, nonetheless, be evidence going to the general issue of the use of promissory notes and whether they were thought to be genuine instruments of security or not.
I direct therefore that the notes (in
(RULING BY THE COURT)
original and altered form) may be adduced in evidence but the reason for the alterations of the interest rates may not.
The jury will be given an appropriate direction as to how they might treat with the evidence which will be adduced.