JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Sharma vs Enill in $1.8m sour deal

by

1210 days ago
20220109

Mark Bas­sant

Lead Ed­i­tor, In­ves­tiga­tive Desk

mark.bas­sant@guardian.co.tt

Na­tion­al Gas Com­pa­ny(NGC) Chair­man Con­rad Enill is now in the midst of a mul­ti-mil­lion-dol­lar claim brought against him, An­tho­ny San­cho, and T.A.C In­vest­ment Group Lim­it­ed by busi­ness­woman and own­er of Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard, Jen­nifer Dan Shar­ma.

In court doc­u­ments filed in Au­gust 2020 and ex­clu­sive­ly ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia’s in­ves­tiga­tive desk, Enill is named as the sec­ond de­fen­dant in the mat­ter, San­cho the first de­fen­dant, and T.A.C In­vest­ment Group Lim­it­ed as the third de­fen­dant.

Shar­ma is seek­ing $1,800,525.44 as the to­tal sum due and out­stand­ing by the de­fen­dants un­der agree­ments and re­im­burse­ments for ser­vices not ren­dered by the de­fen­dants, as well as loss and dam­ages for breach of the agree­ment and in­ter­est.

In Shar­ma’s wit­ness state­ment sub­mit­ted to the court in Sep­tem­ber 2021, she in­di­cat­ed that the sum had been loaned and ad­vanced to the de­fen­dants be­tween June 2019 - Sep­tem­ber 2019, “in­clud­ing pur­chas­es and pay­ments on their be­half in the amount of $1,800,525.44. and no sums were re­paid to Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard in this re­gard.”

Enill was ap­point­ed NGC Chair­man in Ju­ly 2019 in the midst of this on­go­ing agree­ment that he pur­port­ed­ly was part of with San­cho and T.A.C In­vest­ment Group Lim­it­ed.

Shar­ma in­di­cat­ed in her wit­ness state­ment that the monies loaned were for a se­cu­ri­ty de­posit and six months rent for two posh Chateau de Chan­til­ly Deux apart­ments in Mar­aval for both Enill and San­cho in the sum of $343,000 for six months, pur­chase of an Au­di Q5 in the sum of $612,000, ser­vices ren­dered to Shar­ma in their re­spec­tive ca­pac­i­ties as agents and rep­re­sen­ta­tives and or con­sul­tants of T.A.C in the sum of $287,125, a fur­ther loan of $331,000 to be loaned to Enill and San­cho as agents of the T.A.C, with the promise of it be­ing re­paid by T.A.C, a fur­ther $175,900 made by Enill for fur­ther con­sul­tan­cy ser­vices and draw­ing for the project of as­sist­ing Shar­ma in con­struct­ing the Jen­ny’s Tow­ers and the loan of some $3,037USD($20,537.41TT) to form and reg­is­ter a com­pa­ny in the British Vir­gin Is­lands(BVI) in the name of T.A.C Glob­al Hold­ing Lim­it­ed.

Enill in his wit­ness state­ment sub­mit­ted by his at­tor­ney Ron­delle Keller to the court has de­nied ever bor­row­ing any mon­ey from Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard(owned by Shar­ma), ever promised to pur­chase any prop­er­ty, or of­fered project man­age­ment ser­vices, or bor­rowed any mon­ey per­son­al­ly to pay for the rental of two apart­ments, to form or reg­is­ter a com­pa­ny, to ac­quire an Au­di Q5 ve­hi­cle to dri­ve per­son­al­ly or for his own ben­e­fit or for any oth­er pur­pose.

While San­cho did not sub­mit a wit­ness state­ment for the mat­ter, he did tell Guardian Me­dia ear­li­er this week via phone that the “truth will emerge in the court.”

San­cho did ac­knowl­edge he had writ­ten an apol­o­gy let­ter(which Guardian Me­dia ob­tained) to Shar­ma that was sub­mit­ted to her at­tor­ney Jacque­line Bowen Ro­driguez. He told Shar­ma he was “writ­ing to clar­i­fy his role and the role played by Con­rad Enill in re­la­tion to the mat­ter to which you are owed mon­ey. First of all, I am tru­ly sor­ry about what had hap­pened to you and you be­ing out of pock­et for so long, al­most two and a half years now.”

HOW IT WENT DOWN

Shar­ma said in her state­ment that she placed her St Clair home up for sale in May 2019 with the help of re­al es­tate agent War­ren Thomas. Short­ly, af­ter she was in­formed by Thomas of a po­ten­tial buy­er in the name of Al­pha Lorde who rep­re­sent­ed T.A.C In­vest­ment Group Lim­it­ed.

Shar­ma said be­tween May 21-May 24,2019 she met with Thomas, Lorde, and An­tho­ny San­cho who in­tro­duced him­self as the Di­rec­tor of T.A.C. Af­ter a tour of the house, San­cho ac­cord­ing to Shar­ma’s state­ment said, “on the next oc­ca­sion the “boss” will ac­com­pa­ny him on the vis­it to my res­i­den­tial home and the “boss” is the one to make the fi­nal de­ci­sion as to whether to pur­chase my res­i­den­tial home or not.”

A week af­ter this vis­it, Thomas in­formed Shar­ma that Lorde made con­tact re­quest­ing a sec­ond vis­it to her home by the “high­er prin­ci­pal (sic)” who had the “fi­nal say in or­der to con­firm, ap­prove and fi­nalise the sale of my res­i­den­tial home.”

ENILL: “THE BOSS”

On June 10th, 2019 Shar­ma said she met Thomas, Lorde, San­cho, and Con­rad Enill at her res­i­den­tial home. “Mr. San­cho al­so iden­ti­fied Mr. Enill to me as the “boss” he was re­fer­ring to on the last oc­ca­sion and the per­son mak­ing the fi­nal de­ci­sion with re­gard to T.A.C mat­ters.”

Shar­ma said she had been fa­mil­iar with and had known Enill, not on­ly as a for­mer gov­ern­ment min­is­ter but al­so as a fre­quent cus­tomer of her restau­rant Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard. “Fur­ther based on the in­for­ma­tion com­mu­ni­cat­ed to me by Mr. Thomas, I iden­ti­fied Mr. Enill as the po­ten­tial buy­er.”

Shar­ma re­called Enill was dressed in a three-piece suit bear­ing a brief­case and “ap­peared en­thu­si­as­tic as he toured my res­i­den­tial home.” In fact, Shar­ma added, “I felt op­ti­mistic as to the clos­ing of the sale.” She said Enill and her spoke briefly af­ter the view­ing and he “con­firmed to me that he had full au­thor­i­ty to com­plete the sale.”

Shar­ma said she in­vit­ed him to the restau­rant “on the premise of his in­tegri­ty, pub­lic sta­tus, and rep­re­sen­ta­tion to me that he had the au­thor­i­ty to close the trans­ac­tion.”

A few weeks lat­er Shar­ma said she again met with Enill at her restau­rant where they dis­cussed the terms of the agree­ment sale and some of the deal-break­ing items.

Shar­ma said she al­so en­gaged in col­lat­er­al dis­cus­sions with Enill over plans to de­vel­op a com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial build­ing on an­oth­er prop­er­ty lo­cat­ed at 15-17 Ciprani Boule­vard, which is lo­cat­ed op­po­site Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard. Shar­ma claimed in her state­ment “Enill ad­vised me that he had ex­pe­ri­ence in con­struc­tion, project man­age­ment, and project fi­nanc­ing.”

Shar­ma said they spoke for a “cou­ple of hours” about her ex­ten­sive plans.

THE TOW­ERS

Enill told her the project to con­struct the tow­ers would cost ap­prox­i­mate­ly $50 mil­lion and in­di­cat­ed that funds could be se­cured through the T.A.C Group.

She said Enill al­so ad­vised her to en­gage with a team of de­vel­op­ers known as CARENG Group through T.A.C to de­vel­op and con­struct the tow­ers in two phas­es, name­ly Jen­ny’s Tow­ers East and Jen­ny’s Tow­ers West.”He sug­gest­ed that I not use the word “Ciprani” as my trade­mark, that busi­ness good­will al­ready ex­ist­ed in the name Jen­ny’s, and that I should name the de­vel­op­ment some­thing that leaves a lega­cy.”

Shar­ma said that dur­ing this vis­it Enill was al­so ac­com­pa­nied by San­cho and “for­mal­ly in­tro­duced him as his fi­nan­cial ad­vi­sor.” Enill gave the as­sur­ance that San­cho can be trust­ed and he had the “com­pe­ten­cy, abil­i­ty and re­sources to en­sure and over­see the com­ple­tion of all busi­ness de­vel­op­ment ac­tiv­i­ties re­lat­ing to Jen­ny’s Ciprani Tow­ers in­clud­ing de­vel­op­ment, ar­chi­tec­tur­al, project man­age­ment, con­struc­tion and sourc­ing fi­nanc­ing for same. Mr. Enill al­so as­sured me that both him­self and Mr. San­cho were prin­ci­pals of T.A.C and source the monies to close the sale of my res­i­den­tial house.”

Shar­ma said Enill and San­cho held a num­ber of meet­ings at her restau­rant there­after to fi­nal­ize the trans­ac­tions. “Dur­ing that time Enil and San­cho main­tained a run­ning tab and cred­it fa­cil­i­ty for food and drinks on ac­count to be paid by T.A.C.” Shar­ma sub­mit­ted not on­ly these bills as part of her ev­i­dence to the court but al­so oth­er bills, in­voic­es, signed agree­ments, and cheques for the oth­er fa­cil­i­ties she would have ex­tend­ed to Enill, San­cho and T.A.C.

Shar­ma said dur­ing the course of these meet­ings her son Johnathan Shar­ma was al­so present and she trust­ed Enill’s word.

Dur­ing these meet­ings, Shar­ma ad­mit­ted she en­tered in­to a se­ries of ver­bal agree­ments “where I ad­vanced Mr. Enill, Mr. San­cho, and T.A.C sums of mon­ey to move the project for­ward.”

She added, “I at­test that all pay­ments ad­vanced by me in cash were re­quest­ed by Mr. Enill to be paid to him and col­lect­ed by Mr. San­cho and specif­i­cal­ly re­quest­ed by Mr. Enill to be paid in cash.”

KEEP­ING TRACK OF PAY­MENTS

Shar­ma en­sured she found a way to keep track of the mon­ey she lent to the de­fen­dants. “In the ab­sence of re­ceipts from Mr. Enill and or Mr. San­cho, I gen­er­at­ed re­ceipts from my restau­rant as these sums were paid from pro­ceeds of sale from my restau­rant. At all times when these ad­vances were made, Mr. Enill and Mr. San­cho rep­re­sent­ed that the monies were be­ing paid to them in their per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty as the per­son­nel(sic) pro­vid­ing the ser­vices to me and in their re­spec­tive ca­pac­i­ties as agents and or rep­re­sen­ta­tives and or con­sul­tants of T.A.C.”

Dur­ing the pe­ri­od Ju­ly 12, 2019, to Au­gust 6, 2019, Shar­ma said she paid Enill and San­cho in their per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty as the per­son­nel(sic) pro­vid­ing the ser­vices to her in their re­spec­tive ca­pac­i­ties as agents and or rep­re­sen­ta­tives and or con­sul­tants of T.A.C the sum of $287,125.00 and gave a com­pre­hen­sive break­down of what the ser­vices were in her state­ment.

THE POSH APART­MENTS

In Ju­ly Enill gave Shar­ma the con­tin­ued as­sur­ance that the sale of her res­i­den­tial home and the fi­nanc­ing fa­cil­i­ties for the con­struc­tion of the Jen­ny Tow­ers were be­ing ne­go­ti­at­ed. How­ev­er, she said Enill re­quest­ed that T.A.C be loaned some mon­ey “to se­cure liv­ing arrange­ments for him and Mr. San­cho so that he can re­lo­cate to the Port of Spain area from his res­i­dence in Ari­ma in or­der to re­side in an area with­in close prox­im­i­ty to my project. Mr. Enill re­quest­ed I rec­om­mend a re­al es­tate agent to as­sist him and T.A.C with the search for suit­able ac­com­mo­da­tions, I rec­om­mend­ed Geschke Mike as I was fa­mil­iar with him.”

Shar­ma said Enill con­tact­ed her at the end of Ju­ly 2019 and asked that she meet him at Chateau de Chan­til­ly-Deux in Mar­aval. Shar­ma said she went there with her son and al­so met the re­al es­tate agent Mike and the own­er George Laquis. Shar­ma said in her state­ment, “Mr. Enil ex­pressed his sat­is­fac­tion with these apart­ments and re­quest­ed to bor­row monies from my restau­rant in fa­cil­i­tat­ing these rentals.”

She said lat­er that day they met at her restau­rant and in the pres­ence of her son, Enill gave the un­der­tak­ing that the sum will be re­paid to her by T.A.C by Sep­tem­ber 30, 2019. Shar­ma said she was al­so in­formed by Enill and Mike that San­cho would al­so vis­it the apart­ments.

Shar­ma said based on the promise made by Enill for re­im­burse­ment from T.A.C she made the pay­ment. “I re­lied on the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Mr. Enill to my detri­ment and I made a pay­ment in the full sum of $343,000 by way of cheque pay­ment dat­ed Au­gust 7th, 2019 made by me on be­half of the Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard to the com­pa­ny “Wala Wala Lim­it­ed”, the rep­re­sen­ta­tive of rental com­pa­ny Chateau de Chan­til­ly Deux.”

Shar­ma had signed off on rental pay­ment agree­ments for two apart­ments Units 1 and 2 for Enill and San­cho. Shar­ma said an agree­ment was signed off by T.A.C’s di­rec­tor San­cho agree­ing that pay­ments and de­posits made ref­er­enc­ing the apart­ments would be re­paid by T.A.C.

In Mike’s(re­al es­tate agent) wit­ness state­ment sub­mit­ted to the court, he con­firmed that Shar­ma would be the one mak­ing the pay­ments for the apart­ments with the lease made out to T.A.C In­vest­ment Group Lim­it­ed.

Mike said that al­though Enill did not oc­cu­py Unit 1 he was aware that San­cho oc­cu­pied Unit 2. “I re­call dur­ing in or about the month of Oc­to­ber 2019, Ms. Shar­ma con­tact­ed me and re­quest­ed re­mit­tance of the rental pay­ments for Unit 1 in an ef­fort to re­cov­er pay­ments made on be­half of T.A.C and to which, she com­mu­ni­cat­ed to me, that T.A.C is still ow­ing her.”

Shar­ma said she was al­so asked by Enill and San­cho to bor­row the sum of USD $3,037(TT20,537.41) to form and reg­is­ter a com­pa­ny in the BVI in the name of T.A.C Glob­al Hold­ing Lim­it­ed. The lat­ter com­pa­ny as ex­plained to Shar­ma by Enill and San­cho “was in­tend­ed to be the ben­e­fi­cia­ry com­pa­ny to the res­i­den­tial trans­ac­tion.”

THE AU­DI Q5

In the month of Ju­ly 2019, Shar­ma al­so re­called in her state­ment, Enill act­ing in his per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty and or agent and rep­re­sen­ta­tive of T.A.C re­quest­ed the bor­rowed sum of $612,000 for the pur­chase of a new Au­di Q5. Enill, ac­cord­ing to Shar­ma said, “the mo­tor ve­hi­cle was in­tend­ed to be pur­chased by T.A.C and dri­ven by him(Enill) with all trans­fers and cer­tifi­cate own­er­ship of the ve­hi­cle be­ing held in the name of T.A.C.”

Shar­ma said she ob­tained the rel­e­vant cor­po­rate doc­u­ments, from Lorde, the T.A.C rep­re­sen­ta­tive for South­ern Sales and Ser­vice Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed. “Fur­ther to the ac­tions and promis­es of Mr. Enill and Mr. Lorde with some in­put from Mr. San­cho, I pur­chased the said mo­tor ve­hi­cle reg­is­tra­tion PDX 6***(num­ber delet­ed) by way of cheque pay­ment dat­ed the 2nd day of Au­gust 2019, payable to South­ern Sales and Ser­vice Com­pa­ny Lim­it­ed, the car deal­er, for and on be­half of T.A.C.”

In the in­ter­im Shar­ma said she had tak­en her prop­er­ty off the mar­ket on Au­gust 21, 2019, as San­cho had ex­e­cut­ed the said agree­ment for sale on be­half of T.A.C.

Shar­ma said as an “act of good faith,” she nev­er en­gaged in oth­er po­ten­tial buy­ers for her res­i­den­tial home since Enill and San­cho had ex­pressed in­ter­est in the prop­er­ty four months ear­li­er.

Sub­se­quent to sign­ing the agree­ment of sale, Shar­ma said that Enill sug­gest­ed that she open an ac­count at CIBC (First Caribbean In­ter­na­tion­al Bank Lim­it­ed). Enill ad­vised her the rea­son for do­ing so was to “fa­cil­i­tate the pro­ceeds of the sale of my res­i­den­tial home be­ing de­posit­ed in­to that ac­count.” Shar­ma said she opened both a TT and USD ac­count at the bank.

MORE LOANS

Shar­ma con­tend­ed that Enill re­quest­ed fur­ther loans to San­cho and him­self in their per­son­al ca­pac­i­ty and as agents and or rep­re­sen­ta­tives of T.A.C in the sum of $331,000 over the pe­ri­od June to Au­gust 2019.

She said to sup­port these pay­ments made and col­lect­ed by San­cho she gen­er­at­ed re­ceipts all of which were sub­mit­ted to the court at­tached to her 15-page state­ment.

On Sep­tem­ber 9, 2019, Shar­ma re­vealed that “Enill made a fur­ther re­quest in his own ca­pac­i­ty and act­ing on be­half of him­self to bor­row the sum of $175,000 for fur­ther ad­vances to­wards con­sul­tan­cy ser­vices and draw­ing for the project. Mr. Enill un­der­took that T.A.C would re­pay this debt to­geth­er with the oth­ers re­ferred above by Sep­tem­ber 30, 2019, when T.A.C re­alise some funds.”

ENILL, SAN­CHO NOWHERE IN SIGHT

Shar­ma said as time elapsed in­to late Sep­tem­ber 2019, Enill nor San­cho made any con­tact with her or or­gan­ised any fu­ture meet­ings. “I re­call that one or two months be­fore this time, Mr. Enill was ap­point­ed chair­man of the board of di­rec­tors of the NGC.”

Shar­ma said up to late Sep­tem­ber 2019, un­der her busi­ness Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard she had al­ready ad­vanced to Enill, San­cho, and T.A.C loans, and ad­vances in­clud­ing pur­chas­es and pay­ments the sum of $1,800,525.44m.

“ And to date, no sums were re­paid.”

Shar­ma said when she spoke to Lorde and an­oth­er rep­re­sen­ta­tive of T.A.C they were “shocked and sur­prised,” about what had tran­spired in re­gards to the pur­chase of the ve­hi­cle the rental of the apart­ments, and the oth­er mat­ters con­cern­ing Enill, San­cho, and T.A.C.

Af­ter sev­er­al failed at­tempts to con­tact both Enil and San­cho, Shar­ma said she made con­tact with Su­per­in­ten­dent Earl Elie.

She said she met with Elie over the pe­ri­od Oc­to­ber to No­vem­ber 2019 and showed him her sup­port­ing doc­u­ments in the mat­ter.

She said she pre­pared a let­ter dat­ed Oc­to­ber 20, 2019, and ad­dressed it to Enil, and signed on be­half of Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard. She said she re­quest­ed Su­per­in­ten­dent Elie’s as­sis­tance in lo­cat­ing both Enil and San­cho.

Elie, ac­cord­ing to Shar­ma met Enill at least on two oc­ca­sions and had sev­er­al tele­con­fer­ence calls with him.

Elie told Shar­ma that Enill gave the as­sur­ance that the mon­ey will be re­paid and used the phrase, “there are no ifs or buts” in ref­er­ence to the pay­ments.

JEN­NY’S PO­LICE RE­PORTS

Elie al­so con­veyed to Shar­ma that Enil had sight of a wire trans­fer for the said sum of ap­prox­i­mate­ly $1.8m to be trans­ferred to the ac­count of Jen­nifer Dan-Shar­ma at CIBC First Caribbean In­ter­na­tion­al Bank Lim­it­ed. How­ev­er, Enill’s promise nev­er ma­te­ri­alised.

Su­per­in­ten­dent Elie in a wit­ness state­ment al­so sub­mit­ted to the court in sup­port of Shar­ma’s claim said he met Enill at the Radis­son Ho­tel at Wright­son Road on No­vem­ber 13, 2019, and dur­ing a con­ver­sa­tion, Enill “ad­mit­ted to hav­ing knowl­edge about the monies owed to Jen­ny’s on the Boule­vard by him, San­cho and T.A.C”

Elie said he (Enill) made as­sur­ances to have the mon­ey (all $1.8m) wire trans­ferred to her CIBC ac­count and told her to check her ac­count with­in a few days.

Elie said be­tween No­vem­ber 14th to the 22nd 2019 he was in con­tact with Shar­ma to in­quire if she had re­ceived the monies, but she had not.

Elie said he again met with Enill and spoke to him on sev­er­al oc­ca­sions via the phone and Enill give fur­ther as­sur­ances and re-as­sur­ances the monies owed by him­self, San­cho and T.A.C will be re­paid.

When this was not forth­com­ing, Elie said Shar­ma made re­ports to the “St Clair Po­lice Sta­tion and Fraud Squad in Port of Spain in the lat­ter part of No­vem­ber 2019.”

Elie said Shar­ma showed him copies of the po­lice re­ceipts from both sta­tions she ob­tained af­ter mak­ing the re­ports.

---------------------------------------------------------

ENIL DE­NIES IT ALL

In Enill’s wit­ness state­ment sub­mit­ted to the court by his lawyer, Enill dis­tanced him­self from sev­er­al of the busi­ness trans­ac­tions and said he on­ly ac­com­pa­nied his “good friend” San­cho to Shar­ma’s res­i­den­tial home to whether the prop­er­ty was a good lo­ca­tion for T.A.C.

Enill stat­ed his “in­volve­ment or pres­ence with the oth­er par­ties was nev­er for the pur­pose of cre­at­ing any le­gal re­la­tions with the claimant, Jen­nifer Dan-Shar­ma, the first de­fen­dant(San­cho) and the third de­fen­dant(T.A.C).”

In fact, Enill de­nied ever be­ing a “part­ner, man­ag­er share­hold­er, di­rec­tor or ben­e­fi­cia­ry,” of T.A.C and said he “nev­er rep­re­sent­ed my­self to be act­ing in any spe­cial ca­pac­i­ty on be­half of San­cho or T.A.C to Dan-Shar­ma.”

Enill said in mak­ing ref­er­ence to the sale of Shar­ma’s res­i­den­tial home- it was en­tered be­tween San­cho and T.A.C with Shar­ma. He said, “How­ev­er, I am not, nor was I ever, a par­ty to that agree­ment and I am a to­tal stranger to it.”

He added, “To be clear I am a stranger to the de­tails of any spe­cif­ic con­trac­tu­al arrange­ments be­tween the oth­er par­ties in this mat­ter since I was not a par­ty to any of the al­leged agree­ments whether made in writ­ing, oral­ly, or through the course of con­duct.”

Enill in his three-page wit­ness state­ment said he was “per­plexed by claims that he had en­gaged Shar­ma’s com­pa­ny to un­der­take project man­age­ment ser­vices for a pro­posed de­vel­op­ment of a com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial build­ing, the so-called, “Jen­ny’s(Ciprani) Tow­ers. I was nev­er a par­ty to any agree­ment.”

Enill de­nied ever re­ceiv­ing any monies from Shar­ma’s com­pa­ny/Shar­ma or any of her agents. “I am com­plete­ly tak­en aback by the al­le­ga­tions that they had paid mon­ey over to me or that I fa­cil­i­tat­ed or rep­re­sent­ed the re­quest for such pay­ments. These al­le­ga­tions are far from the truth.”

The NGC chair­man al­so de­nied bor­row­ing any mon­ey from Shar­ma to make any de­posit on the Chateau de Chan­til­ly apart­ments, to set up or reg­is­ter a new com­pa­ny, or to pur­chase a new Au­di Q5 ve­hi­cle.

Enill said the ve­hi­cle and apart­ment were in­tend­ed for T.A.C to be giv­en to its in­tend­ed chair­man or CEO. He said he nev­er ac­cept­ed any such role at the com­pa­ny nor was he a re­ceipt or ben­e­fi­cia­ry of any apart­ment or Au­di Q5 ve­hi­cle.

Enill said he was tak­en aback when he re­ceived a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter on be­half of Shar­ma “claim­ing ex­or­bi­tant sums from me joint­ly with San­cho and T.A.C.”

He al­so de­nied that he gave any un­der­tak­ing to any­one from the Trinidad and To­ba­go Po­lice Ser­vice that he would pay Shar­ma the sum owed. “The al­le­ga­tion is com­plete­ly false. As it present­ly stands there are no con­vic­tions or pend­ing charges in re­la­tion to this or any oth­er mat­ter.”

Enill in­sist­ed that he has “on­ly been a close friend and con­fi­dant of San­cho and noth­ing more.”

Guardian Me­dia reached out to Enill in ear­ly De­cem­ber via phone and he in­di­cat­ed he was in a meet­ing and would re­turn our call.

Enill, did not call back and we sent him a What­sApp mes­sage con­cern­ing the court mat­ter and the claims raised in the court doc­u­ments we read and sift­ed through.

Enill first re­spond­ed stat­ing, “ I am not the busi­ness part­ner of Mr. San­cho.”

Guardian Me­dia re­spond­ed in the in­ter­est of fair and trans­par­ent jour­nal­ism we want­ed to hear his side of the sto­ry. We did clar­i­fy that San­cho seemed to act as Enil’s man of busi­ness. Enill re­spond­ed say­ing, “He asked for an opin­ion on a project. I have no re­la­tion­ship with him be­yond that.”

Enill urged us to read his wit­ness state­ment, which we lat­er ob­tained. He then in­di­cat­ed, “The mat­ter is be­fore the court so I am await­ing the out­come.”

We pressed Enill in­di­cat­ing that due to the al­le­ga­tions con­tained in the court doc­u­ments and him be­ing a pub­lic fig­ure it was im­por­tant to get his feed­back for par­i­ty.

Enill lat­er re­spond­ed stat­ing, “As far as I am aware this is a pri­vate mat­ter be­tween Mr. San­cho and the par­ties he con­tract­ed with.”

SAN­CHO APOL­O­GIS­ES

When Guardian Me­dia con­tact­ed San­cho last Mon­day he said, “The truth will emerge in court.”

San­cho con­firmed that he had al­so writ­ten an apol­o­gy let­ter to Shar­ma on No­vem­ber 25, 2021, which her lawyer ac­knowl­edged she ob­tained from San­cho.

Shar­ma’s lawyer Jacque­line Bowen-Ro­driguez when con­tact­ed about whether San­cho had sub­mit­ted a wit­ness state­ment to the court she replied in the neg­a­tive.

In the open­ing of the let­ter, San­cho apol­o­gis­es pro­fuse­ly for the mon­ey owed and for putting her out of pock­et for more than two years.

San­cho es­sen­tial­ly in­di­cat­ed that he act­ed with his com­pa­ny T.A.C with the guid­ance and ad­vice of Enill.

San­cho said he had known Enill for over 20 years and said he was con­fi­dent through his con­nec­tions that they would be able to se­cure the funds to buy Shar­ma’s home and the “project based on the premise that such a project will at­tract both lo­cal and in­ter­na­tion­al sources.”

San­cho ad­mit­ted in his apol­o­gy let­ter of hav­ing pur­port­ed­ly col­lect­ed monies for both him­self and Enill.

In San­cho’s part­ing line be­fore sign­ing off on the let­ter to Shar­ma said, he “tru­ly re­gret­ted what had tran­spired in the past.”

On Wednes­day San­cho again con­tact­ed this jour­nal­ist to al­so say,” right is right and wrong is wrong and what took place was “in­ex­cus­able and could have been avoid­ed and I will say this pub­licly.”

Shar­ma when con­tact­ed would on­ly say she was hop­ing for a “favourable out­come” on her part when the civ­il mat­ter comes up for hear­ing lat­er this year.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored