By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Royal Bahamas Police Force has been ordered to return $101,038 in cash seized from a part-time carpenter after the Court of Appeal criticised its non-existent investigation into whether this represented criminal proceeds.

Appeal justice Jon Isaacs, in delivering the court’s unanimous rejection of the Police Commissioner’s appeal, said that by the standards of the police investigation all “who save their money under mattresses or are holding ‘Asue’ funds are in peril of being prosecuted as money launderers”.

He ruled that the police had not come near to proving that the funds seized from Ricardo Quincy Jones, following a search of his bags at Lynden Pindling International Airport (LPIA) prior to boarding a flight to Trinidad, represented the proceeds of criminal activity because no investigation had been conducted to obtain the necessary evidence.

Ordering that the monies be returned to Mr Jones “forthwith”, the Court of Appeal judgment recorded that his ordeal began when Sergeant Flowers and Corporal Ranger, both plain-clothes officers on “special duty”, stopped him in LPIA’s departure lounge at 1pm on November 2, 2018, on the grounds he was acting suspiciously.

Mr Jones informed the duo he was flying to Port-of-Spain via Caribbean Airlines, and the officers retrieved his checked-in bag before all went to the police station. Upon opening and inspecting the luggage, Sergeant Flowers found a “large sum of money” which Mr Jones allegedly admitted belonged to himself. After being counted, the total amounted to $101,038.

The part-time carpenter was charged with the “attempted exportation of restricted goods” under both the Exchange Control Regulations and Customs Management Act, as well as concealing and removing the proceeds of crime. However, under questioning by Mr Jones’ attorney, Murrio Ducille, at the original hearing before senior magistrate Derrence Rolle-Davis, the police officers were very vague on what grounds they had to charge him.

Sergeant Flowers told the court: “No, I didn’t charge him for the proceeds of crime. But proceeds of crime is what I arrested him for. I believe if you have a large sum of US dollars, I believe that to be a crime... I don’t know the origin of the money. And, no, I didn’t ask him where he got it from.

“And I don’t even know where the money is now. I know that to have a large sum of money without authorisation, it is a new law I think in 2018, but I don’t know for sure. I didn’t know the defendant before that day. No, I didn’t do no investigation as to the source of the money. I don’t know. I did not see him doing anything unlawful, though, no. I don’t know if it is in fact proceeds of crime.”

Sergeant Jared Turnquest, chief investigating officer of the police’s Financial Crimes Investigation Branch, took the seized funds to the Central Detective Unit and conducted an interview with Mr Jones, with the latter replying “no comment” to questions that included whether he had Central Bank approval for the US dollar currency conversion; what he intended to do with the funds; and if the monies represented the proceeds of crime and he was being paid to transport them.

Sergeant Turnquest, though, under cross-examination before the magistrate, admitted he could not identify the source of Mr Jones’ funds. “The proceeds as it relates to proceed (sic) of crime, I asked him of the source of his funds. He didn’t answer me,” the officer said.

“The Act speaks to the source. I can make suggestions as to the source, but I have no conclusion. The income of Ricardo Quincy Jones is the means. Whether or not they were legitimate means as to how he got that amount of cash, I don’t know.”

Senior magistrate Rolle-Davis subsequently acquitted Mr Jones, adding that “we will all run afoul” of the Central Bank’s exchange control regulations if the prosecution’s interpretation was correct. The police, via the director of public prosecutions, subsequently sought permission to appeal the ruling after an “oversight” meant this did not happen with the time set down by the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, the appeal faced an immediate “curve ball” when Mr Jones’ attorneys pointed out that the section in the Customs Management Act used to bring the original charge had been repealed under the 2011 reforms. As a result, that charge was “null and void”, and Darnell Dorsette, appearing for the prosecution, ultimately conceded this could not stand.

And, while the magistrate had failed to deal with the Proceeds of Crime charges, the Court of Appeal found that the police had simply failed to carry out a proper investigation and obtain anything like the evidence required to show that Mr Jones’ money had been derived from nefarious activities.

“It is readily apparent that for a person to be convicted for the offence of money laundering pursuant to section nine of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2018, it is necessary for the prosecution to lead sufficient evidence for a magistrate to find that there are enough objective factual circumstances extant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed by the defendant,” Appeal justice Isaacs wrote.

“The evidence led by the prosecution showed that a part-time carpenter was leaving The Bahamas en route to a foreign destination and had concealed in his luggage over $100,000. No question was asked about his wages, no investigation made into his lifestyle or any substantial assets he may own, for example properties, bank deposits, luxury vehicles or yachts.

“More evidence was needed before an inference could be drawn that the intended respondent was engaged in money laundering. Anything less than a thorough investigation - as laborious and time consuming as that may be - cannot suffice to prove the offence of money laundering,” he continued.

“If something less could amount to ‘objective factual circumstances’, persons who save their money under mattresses or are holding ‘Asue’ funds are all in peril of being prosecuted as money launderers. There is nothing particularly sinister about a person seeking to hide the money with which he is travelling, although one may have a suspicion as to its source in the absence of any reasonable explanation as to the source.”

While some may question where a “part-time carpenter” obtained more than $100,000 in liquid cash, the majority of it in US dollars, Appeal justice Isaacs quoted a prior legal ruling that said: “Suspicion upon suspicion is not proof.” As a result, the acquittal of Mr Jones on both proceeds of crime charges was upheld. “The funds seized by the police must be returned to the intended respondent forthwith,” the Court of Appeal ruled.