Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A former employee of ANSA Bank at the centre of a $30 million fraudulent loan conspiracy, which involves a group of foreign used car dealers, has been ordered to repay more than half the money the bank was defrauded of.
Late last month, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad upheld the bank’s multi-faceted case against its former business development officer Dwayne Rojas.
However, he only assessed the appropriate compensation to be paid by Rojas and the used car dealers during a hearing yesterday.
Explaining his decision, Justice Seepersad ordered Rojas to pay the bank $16,521,502.73 in compensation.
“This court holds the view that the claimant is entitled to damages in the amount of the loans which were approved/or processed by him, less payments made thereto, inclusive of interest.”
He was also ordered to pay the bank $316,607.51 in legal costs.
Justice Seepersad also assessed the compensation to be paid by five used car dealers, who the bank obtained default judgments against late last year.
Ceylon Marketing Ltd was ordered to pay $6,298,314.67, while Joalex Auto Ltd was ordered to pay $11,837,735.80.
Miva Import Export Consultancy, Diamond Conceptions Co Ltd, and It’s A Deal Ltd were ordered to pay $4,091,206.49, $389,923.79, and $837,313.37, respectively.
They were also ordered to pay significant legal costs, which were proportional to the compensation ordered against them.
Despite the legal victory, which would result in the bank recouping its losses, it was ordered to pay significant legal costs to three other employees – digital support service representative Zaria Sankar, business development manager Reyvaan Rampersad, operations supervisor Kerry Ramsaroop, and Adriana Ramsingh, the former partner of another employee, who were all included in the lawsuit.
“The case against each of these defendants was ill-advised, devoid of merit and lacked bona fides. The court formed the impression that the claimant was so addled by the magnitude of its losses due to the fraudulent loans that it adopted an almost bullying stance and inappropriately threw all the junior employees under the proverbial bus,” he said.
“Such action will not be countenanced as the lives of these litigants were unfairly and unjustly impacted,” he added.
The bank launched an investigation after its director Larry Howai received a letter from a whistle-blower alleging misconduct and “disrespect for duty.”
The initial investigation found that there were loan transactions not in accordance with company policy.
A wider investigation was done at the Chaguanas branch of the bank where the discrepancies were found, and a conspiracy was allegedly uncovered where the bank sustained losses of almost $30 million in two-and-a-half years involving 35 vehicles and properties.
In the lawsuit, the bank alleged that its former employees and the companies engaged in a conspiracy to present fraudulent documents and make fraudulent representations to help secure loans.
It claimed that its former employees breached the terms of their contracts and conducted themselves in a manner that was likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust between themselves and the bank.
The bank obtained default judgments, totalling $20 million, against Gottsleben and the companies after they failed to properly defend the case.
The case against Rambarran was withdrawn after a consent order was entered at the conclusion of the trial.
In determining the case, Justice Seepersad considered the specific allegations against the remaining defendants to determine whether they had breached their contracts and fiduciary duty to the bank and were involved in or benefited from the alleged conspiracy.
He found Rojas culpable as he noted that he should have recognised issues with the supporting documents for the loans if he was honestly discharging his duties.
“Several of the impugned transactions displayed irregular coincidences as many of the applicants were relatively young, had no proof of significant educational qualifications, worked for the same companies, and they all earned unusually high salaries,” Justice Seepersad said.
He also noted that Rojas admitted that he was friends with officials of the dealers and that they would lime at bars in central Trinidad.
“On a balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that given the close personal relationship which existed between this defendant and the representatives of the roll on roll off dealers, the former must have intimated to the latter that he would assist in the processing and fabrication of fictitious loan applications if the representatives would supply fictitious and fabricated document,” Justice Seepersad said.
Dealing with Rojas’ co-workers, Justice Seepersad noted that there was insufficient evidence presented by the bank to prove their involvement in the conspiracy, as their participation came after the loans were essentially approved.
Justice Seepersad also criticised the bank for failing to bring key senior officials to testify in the case over how the fraudulent transactions were not detected.
Dealing with the claim against Ramsingh, Justice Seepersad noted that there was no evidence to prove she was part of the conspiracy besides her relationship with Gottsleben.
He also noted that the property was seized and sold by the bank in order to recoup the balance on the loan.
The bank was represented by Ian Benjamin, Bryan McCutcheon and Candace Layers.
Rojas was represented by Leon Kallicharan and Samantha Singh-Poona.
Sankar was represented by Vashist Seepersad, while Rajiv Rickhi, Ria Ramoutar, Shveta Parasram and Vandana Benny represented Rampersad.
Andre Koomalsingh represented Ramsingh, while Avril Gay represented Ramsaroop.
