By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Supreme Court yesterday rejected assertions that The Bahamas’ provision of assistance to a global Internet and cyber fraud investigation is “an impermissible fishing expedition”.

Justice Darron Ellis, in a June 12, 2025, verdict, rejected the targeted company’s demand for the Attorney General’s Office to provide specific information to aid its defence on the basis that this “would transform these preliminary proceedings into a premature mini-trial” and create unnecessary extra costs and delay.

His ruling was sparked by a request for The Bahamas to provide legal assistance to German prosecutors, who are seeking to trace the ill-gotten gains from a purported Internet-based cyber scam that defrauded several thousand victims.

Some $500,000 of these proceeds were alleged to have been transferred to an account with Bahamas-based The Winterbotham Trust Company on December 7, 2020. The account’s beneficial owner, Tubmanberg Ltd, and its director, Nathaniel Bosfield, are the two “respondents” in the case, and there is no suggestion that the well-known Bahamian financial services provider has done anything wrong.

The German request for legal assistance prompted the Attorney General’s Office to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Justice (International Co-Operation) Act on May 31, 2022. It obtained a Supreme Court Order just 14 days later requiring The Winterbotham Trust Company to hand over all documents and information related to the Tubmanberg Ltd account - something the latter is now challenging.

The German request, from prosecutors based in Osnabruck, revealed: “For several years now there have been persons in Germany and other states who have become victims of fraudulent Microsoft phone calls by callers posing as employees of Microsoft (USA).”

They asserted that the scam involved a pop-up window appearing on victims’ computers that both prevents them from being able to use it and indicates there is a virus infection. The same pop-up window, though, “offers to help the victims by having them call a certain telephone number” using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.

German prosecutors added that, when the number was called, persons reached “a call centre” allegedly staffed by Microsoft (USA) employees. They were then instructed to download a maintenance software called TeamViewer to combat the purported computer virus infection.

The German legal request, though, asserted that this was a ruse and the downloaded software instead gave the scammers access to a victim’s computer data. They would then alter this data without the victim suspecting anything, then blame the changes on the ‘virus’ and charge a fee for “correcting the problem” and restoring the data.

The Osnabruck prosecutor’s office said personal data belonging to a German citizen, Roland Wrobel, had been misused to rent 30 of the phone numbers used in the scheme. These numbers were, in turn, traced to a US company, Twilio Inc, which said the numbers were assigned to a reseller, PhoneWagon and its principal, Ryan Shank, who would rent them out to the alleged perpetrators.

“Based on the data which was still in the custody of Twilio Inc, and provided by them, the prosecutors were able to identify more than 2,400 individual cases with damages of more than $125,000 euros, which equates to more than $140,000,” the German legal assistance request alleged.

Seeking to trace the scheme’s money flows, they alleged that some $16.219m “was received in the three targeted accounts, of which $2.271m went into the Payoneer (EU) Ltd account held by Nathaniel Bosfield, director of Tubmanberg”.

The remainder flowed into Tubmanberg accounts in Singapore and Curacao and, from there, a $500,000 transfer to the company’s account with The Winterbotham Company account was traced. Tubmanberg is now seeking to challenge the Order requiring the financial provider to hand over information on its account.

The company’s attorney, in early 2023, signalled that it had reached an agreement with the Attorney General’s Office. “Unfortunately, subsequent events led prosecutor Jurgen Lewandrowski in Germany to believe that the negotiations were nothing more than a ruse meant to impede the progress of the action and the adherence to the terms of the ex-parte Order,” Justice Ellis wrote.

Tubmanberg Ltd, which was represented by Sean Moree KC, attorney at McKinney, Bancroft & Hughes, on January 30, 2025, requested that the Attorney General’s Office provide information on whether there is an active German criminal investigation against it; how the details sought on its account would assist any probe; and whether there is any evidence to support an “inference of malfeasance” against it.

The Attorney General’s Office rejected the request, arguing that it was “inappropriate” and that it was “without merit and bound to fail” as Criminal Justice (International Co-Operation) Act proceedings are specialist cases governed by their own legislation and procedural rules. This prompted Tubmanberg Ltd’s bid for an Order to compel production of the information it sought.

Detailing the company’s arguments, Justice Ellis wrote: “Counsel submits that, in the present case, no allegation of fraud has been made against the first respondent. Requiring Winterbotham Trust Company to disclose the information sought would, therefore, constitute an impermissible fishing expedition.”

And, with no investigation targeting Tubmanberg Ltd, or a conviction secured against it, Mr Moree argued on its behalf that it “would be premature and inappropriate for Winterbotham to release [its] confidential records”.

The Attorney General’s Office, though, stood firm and maintained that there was no other mechanism for compelling the production of information or evidence sought by another country - a position that Justice Ellis agreed with.

“Critically, this matter is still at an investigatory stage,” he ruled. “No charges have been laid, and no pleadings have been filed. The first respondent appears to seek information solely to determine whether a charge will eventually be laid. In such circumstances, this application appears premature and inappropriate.....

“In the court’s considered view, granting this request would transform these proceedings into a premature mini-trial, contrary to the overriding objective of the CPR (civil procedure rules), which is to deal with these cases justly, expeditiously and cost-effectively.” Justice Ellis thus dismissed Tubmanberg’s request.