• Rules governing Rudy King's accounts 'ignored routinely'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A flamboyant Bahamian businessman and “philanthropist” faces a retrial on fraud and money laundering charges after the Court of Appeal found the rules governing his Post Office Savings Bank accounts were “ignored routinely”.

Appeal justice Jon Isaacs, in a July 26, 2023, unanimous verdict backed by his colleagues, found that magistrate Derrence Rolle-Davis reached “a flawed conclusion” in determining that Rudolph “Rudy” King had no case to answer over allegations that he defrauded the Post Office Savings Bank of some $661,648 between 2012 and 2015.

Quashing Mr King’s acquittal, and sending the case back for trial before a new magistrate, the Court of Appeal found that his five Post Office Savings Bank accounts were operated in breach of the Savings Bank Rules that accompany the Savings Bank Act. This was because they were used like current accounts, which was forbidden by these Rules, to handle multiple deposits and withdrawals instead of being employed merely to accumulate savings.

“The allegations against the respondent arose out of several transactions he conducted through five accounts he controlled in the Post Office Savings Bank because he appeared to have withdrawn more money out of the accounts than he had deposited in them,” appeal justice Isaacs wrote in his verdict.

“I observe that, according to the Savings Bank Rules made pursuant to section 14 of the Savings Bank Act, the purpose of the bank is to encourage thrift and that it is not to be used as a current account.” The repayment of funds deposited into the Post Office Savings Bank was also governed by the same rules.

“It would appear from the facts of this case that the Rules were ignored routinely by those who were mandated to scrupulously obey them,” appeal justice Isaacs added.

“The respondent [Mr King] was allowed to open five accounts at the Post Office Savings Bank in the names of himself and four companies. It appears that he did not operate these accounts as they were intended, namely for saving money, but given the volume of recorded transactions conducted in respect of each account, he used them as one would use a current account.

“At the respondent’s trial, the appellant [Commissioner of Police] called some 20 witnesses who spoke to the purpose of the Post Office Savings Bank and the rules governing the operation of accounts with the Post Office Savings Bank. They also spoke directly to those accounts the respondent operated, and his apparent failure to produce his passbooks when requested to do so by the former Post Master General, Mrs Pennerman- Seymour.”

However, magistrate Rolle-Davis found for the ‘no case to answer’ submission from Mr King and his attorney, former minister of state for legal affairs, Damian Gomez KC, in relation to the five counts of fraud by false pretences and five counts of money laundering that the well-known impresario was charged with.

He ruled that there was “a gaping hole” in the prosecution’s case, as “no fraud has been shown on this evidence alone”. The magistrate added that most of the witnesses had confirmed “Mr King did what he was supposed to do, and that they signed and checked the passbook, and all was in order”. Thus he concluded “that no crime has been committed”, with the prosecution failing to make its case, and Mr King was acquitted “of all charges”.

However, appeal justice Isaacs found that magistrate Rolle-Davis erred in focusing on the need for original copies of documentary evidence. As a result, he “chose to disregard the evidence entirely and thereby failed to properly and adequately assess the evidence that the prosecution had adduced. Thus, the magistrate could not reasonably arrive at his conclusion that there was no case for the respondent to answer”.

Mr Gomez, in response to a question at the Court of Appeal hearing, also conceded that the magistrate “seemed to ignore” evidence showing all the transactions that occurred involving Mr King’s five Post Office Savings Bank accounts, including deposits, withdrawals, dates and sums involved, even though these were admitted into evidence.

“Had the magistrate given attention to schedules and to the offences charged individually, he would have noted, for example, that the record reflects that a deposit of a small amount was made at the main Post Office on one day and a larger amount was withdrawn from the same account at a sub-post office on the same day,” appeal justice Isaacs ruled.

“Prima facie, this discloses that a representation was made by the respondent that the larger sum was available to his order than was the sum that was, in actuality, in his account. The appellant contends that this was the actus reus [guilty act] of the offence of fraud by false pretences.....

“The intent to defraud can be inferred from the circumstances of the deposit of a lower sum, and the purported presentation of a request to withdraw a larger sum, thereby obtaining a monetary gain that is the difference between the deposit and the withdrawal.”

Appeal justice Isaacs ruled that, by excluding admissible evidence provided by the prosecution, “the magistrate proceeded from a wrong premises and arrived, therefore, at a flawed conclusion.... There was a failure by the magistrate to evaluate all of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial... I am satisfied that the magistrate’s decision to discharge the respondent was precipitous and that the acquittal on all of the charges must be quashed”.