Patrick Toppin (l) Oliver Jordan (r) CLICO Judicial Managers
One of the most discussed issues in Barbados in the six months has been the CLICO Forensic Audit Report. The Nation Newspaper has cherry picked and published those parts which make for ‘good’ reading. BU is pleased to post the full report for ALL Barbadians to read.
Barbados Underground 
@Onions
Just checking to establish your measuremen for best.
@David & Onions
Wuh ‘appen? All yuh changing the subject of de thread from forensics to culture? 🙂
Ask David….like he is afraid Hamilton Hill’s lunacy is contagious..lol
@balance i have discuss the cheque matter with you before but for all intended purposes except yourself you think to believe that the public if flooish and unaware of when some one is using covert tactics to acomplish their desired goal..mr arthur had absolutely no excuse for depositing the cheque into his personnal account as leader of the BLP one would think that he must have access of using the accounts of the BLP for such a purpose.the thing stinks to high hell.
@hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come after me go ahead but bet be sure that you got no dirty laundry to hang out
@de hood
Thanks to your eagle eye please note the comments should have been under the Mama Mia blog.
@ millertheanunnaki | July 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM |
This is an excellent assessment on this CLICO fiasco. I read it three times.
I may be wrong but I am of the view that the dead king was the real mastermind behind this company wheeling and dealing. Leroy Parris is not so clever to do all the bobbing and weaving that went on in this company. The decision to buy/lease the jet had to be from DT, he flew on that plane from the time it was purchased. The idea to run the $3.333 million through Thompson Associates could never be an idea from LP. Between these two, they raped this company. Remember too, this is all the while that LP was paid $80,000 per month base pay.
If the BLP wins the next election and does not prosecute LP and his enablers, I will have to rethink my support for them. This is too serious to be swept under the carpet and my tax dollars have no right to be used to repay the poor policyholders while LP is still holding his millions, living high on the hog and the dead king left all of his loot to his family. What about the policyholders families who are suffering as a result of their thieving actions?
Caswell said a few weeks ago that he was informed that the dead king left 34 million dollars.
What is the latest on the late Prime Minister’s will?
How will the CLICO matter affect Mara’s campaign.
Can she reasonably expect to remain above the fray come general election time?
David,
Ask Caswell, he was the one who broke the news.
Not to forget …the millions in St. Lu Lu…
@ac | July 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM |
@hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come after me go ahead but bet be sure that you got no dirty laundry to hang out
****************************************************
But,ac, wuh I gine come affa yuh wid lawyer fuh? Only one reason I wud need tuh come affa yuh and fuh shure ah ain’t gine need nuh lawyer fuh dah. Ah lie? 🙂 Yuh likes yuh is tekkin yuhself real serious doe.
@ac ”@ac | July 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM | @hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want to come hood my husband is lawyer and if you or any of your freinds want ”
——
Ah, I just had an epiphany. Never mind ac, I like you as a person and as a blogger so your secret identity is safe with me (apart from that I am just too much a gentleman to divulge a lady’s secret). 😉
David im a new at this but do you know who was the Manager at Thompson & Associates in December 2008? If you do will you state that persons name? If you dont will you check it out and publish it?
@ac | July 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM. My comments are apolitical. Not intended to benefit any political party, simply because I have no confidence, for the most part, in Barbados politicians. Of either party. So calm down a little.
That said, and despite all invitations to comment on fatally flawed and politically expedient conclusions by some here – which I can’t be bothered to do as they are already seen for what they are, there is no DLP smoking gun. There isn’t even a peashooter. And no amount of ducking and weaving and political wishful thinking is going to change that.
I merely express the hope that when the FBI report discussed in the House by the PM and O$A is released, that too will be found to be as exculpatory as the CLICO report. You know what they say. “Hope springs eternal”.
..mr arthur had absolutely no excuse for depositing the cheque into his personnal account as leader of the BLP one would think that he must have access of using the accounts of the BLP for such a purpose.the thing stinks to high hell.”
perhaps your speculation might be true or might not be true but i ask if a cheque is written to you would you not have to cash the cheque by depositing it in your bank account or drawing tne funds. ac there is a central bank procedure that sources of income in excess of ten thousand dollars have to be declared as well. the cheque was not wriiten to the party so they would not be able to account for the sources of funds. the question would be if the bank where the cheque was deposited requested mr arthur to follow the procedure. now there i have given you another pathway to pursue your vendetta and by extension the bank against mr arthur.
@Amused
I want to ask you a question and hope u can answer or research it and cite decided case(s).
It is in reference to what caswell stated on another blog concerning the AX issue. He has stated that the Principals are not appointed to a school, but to the Ministry of Education. Suppose that he is right and that they should be appointed to the Ministry and assigned to a school and a mistake was made and atlest seven years after it has not been corrected, has Mr. Boorme got a legitimate exspecation to remain appointed or could it be amended subsequently by being published in the Official Gazette.
Why then Father Gatherer appointed could not be subsequently published in the official Gazette to legitimize his retirement age. I am sure u know of this case that is why i am brief.
“The decision to buy/lease the jet had to be from DT, he flew on that plane from the time it was purchased.”
FLAWED REASONING.
@Amused
Calm down for what ! calm down for what ! as a matter of fact i am ecstatic. it is good to know of your apolitical leanings whether they be beneficial to one party or not all that matters is setting the record straight.
@balannce .
i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.
Mara Thompson was Office Manager up 2007. If anyone can shed light who took over the job please feel free to do so.
i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.”
ypu mean although i offered you an olive branch you still accuse me of misleading. if you prefe tocontinue to be speculative even in the face of informed comment then it is not worth the while to engage you. no where can the adjective folish be ascribed to you but i am loathe to quote that’ salt and sand and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding’
@David
Thanks for the info.
@Amused – No smoking gun not even a peashooter
You sound like a lawyer. Do you guys normally submit false invoices on behalf of your clients?
@To the point | July 8, 2012 at 6:54 AM. I cannot comment on that. I have read the reports of the Waterman Commission in Barbados Today. I see that the very questions you ask me to comment on has been raised before the Commission. I have no intention of second-guessing Mr Waterman or the counsel appearing before the Commission which, with respect, are the best of the best. So, I recommend to you the (for Barbados) excellent reports being carried in Barbados Today.
@patenham. On what basis do you conclude that the invoices were false? I see no evidence to point anyone to that conclusion and I state that wishful thinking is not evidence.
@ac. Chile, seeing that some commenters are living in Neverland, do NOT calm down. You are right to be elated and excited – you are right. Enjoy!
@Amused
It is my understanding invoices that total $3.33m was submitted by Thompson And Associates for legal services rendered Clico.
It is also my understanding that the $3.33m paid by Clico to Thompson and Associates based on the invoices for legal services was actually part gratuity payment for Leroy Parris.
Now i am a simple man. What was the cheque for.
Was it for legal services Or was it for Gratuity.
Is there a possibility they were two cheques @ $3.33m each or is it that Clico still owes Thompson and Associates $3.33m for the legal fees.
@ patenham | July 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM |
Don’t expect a response. This is too straightforward a question for a simple response from the joker in the amusing CLICO pack.
@balance
whatis your problem ! the olive branch however well it might been intended was your way of saying “see mr osa was not so bad afterall he was followingbank procedure which at this point was never confirmed by OSA ! what olive branch . any way thanks but no thanks.and what informed comment based on “IF”
@patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.
As I have said, THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN and no amount of political wishful thinking is going to generate one.
@ac. As someone who is traditionally BLP, I will now fully support you in BLP-bashing these idiots who refuse to see that there is no smoking gun implicating the DLP or David Thompson in any ethical or legal wrongdoing. Bash away. They have asked for it.
Amused,
If you want to put reason aside and join AC in being delusional, feel free, but the only one you are convincing with that specious argument is yourself…and AC of course.
I am disappointed in you.
@ac. I leave it to you to respond to Inkwell on the subject of our “specious” argument. I note that the usual major political spinners on BU are keeping well away from this one, small wonder, and I believe you are I are enititled to draw our own inferences from that, even though we are, to all intents and purposes, on opposite sides. So, if you wish to move in for the kill on the subject of misappropriated cheques (not made out to the person paying them into their account) all I can say is, be my guest. It is high time some people put Barbados first and politics second.
Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |
@patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.
***************************************
you should be a lawyer. that was very creative. i would love you to give that same creative reasoning to some of the policyholders who can’t get back their money.
let me know how that works out for you and them.
what rubbish.
The company was raped – Lear Jets and million dollar legal fees (sorry “gratuities”). The auditors were negligent. The actuaries incompetent or non-existent. Assets were not matched to liabilities. Exorbitant, unapproved executive remuneration was the norm. Accounting policies were ignored. The statutory fund was not maintained. The company mispriced and mis-sold its policies. The objections of the Supervisor of Insurance were ignored. Counsel was compliant with its snout in the same trough as the directors. The EFPA’s were nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
The connection between this company and the DLP is public knowledge.
Exactly how much of a smoking gun does Amused need?
@Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |
“If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.”
One notices how you eschew the issue of income tax liability on the gratuity payment. Since you are being ‘hypothetical here ( and quite rightly seeing that you were adamant in the past that the $3.33 million was in respect of a gratuity payment to Parris as alluded to in the forensic audit report) why not let us continue down this path and assume that no income tax was deducted at source i.e. by the CLICO Accounting Officer(s).
If this is the case what would be the responsibility or duty of the Solicitors “Thompson and Associates” to their client LP that the gratuity payment credited to the solicitor/client account is subject to Income Tax thereby ensuring that the account under the solicitor’s fiduciary control is not compromised and running afoul of the Revenue Laws of Barbados?
We should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in Law to explore this angle of the debate as you would wont to do in other aspects of the said Law.
@Miller. No expertise in law is required here, merely a modicum of common sense, which I urge you to adopt.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NO TAX WAS PAID ON THIS SUM????? How do you know whether or not Parris or Thompson or both did not pay tax on this amount? It was not within the scope of the investigation to ascertain this and if the tax people wish to question or investigate it, that is for them. Why are you asking me these extremely silly questions the answers to which would be very apparent to anyone with even a modicum of business experience? Do you really not know the answers? Or is this some sort of political fishing trip where, as we all know, perception, rather than TRUTH, is the desired outcome? And if it is a fishing trip, I fear that the perception is not what you are wanting and trying to achieve.
Now, enough of this. If you have questions on the taxation on this amount or concerns, take it up with the tax authorities and/or lodge a formal complaint with the DPP. There is no evidence to suggest that tax was not paid and, if it was not, I am quite sure the tax authorities will deal with this issue and if you feel the need, you can write them and share your views with them.
But, since we are on the subject of tax and you appear to be such an authority on tax, we should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in tax to explore this angle of the debate in relation to the cheque for $75,000 that ended up in an account other than that for which it was designated.
Very Amusing….
@ Amused | July 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM |
You have reacted just as expected when trapped in an intellectual corner! Resort to the use of the ad hominem technique and draw red herrings across the debating trail.
You have indeed shown your true colours which we suspected all along but couldn’t attach a partisan tag which you vehemently denied continuously until now.
One fails to see the relationship between the ‘suspect’ gratuity (subjected to the microscope of a forensic audit) paid to LP from the contributions of defrauded CLICO policyholders and some $75,000.00 picked from nowhere. Who was the paymaster and final recipient or beneficiary of this amount of $75,000.00 or was it $750,000.00?
Good luck, Mi Laud! The Bajan electorate especially the CLICO policyholders would soon be having their say and final verdict as to who receive what and how much. Not Court jesters and spin doctors. You are truly an honour to your calling.
“And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
I am sure you are familiar with the above quote from a philosopher you grudgingly admire but whose teachings you refuse to acknowledge or respect.
So tell me BLP yardfowls what is so unethical about thompson and associates being paid for services rended or even attorney client privilegeThen what do you yardflows suggest that the lawfirm do return the cheque .you guys/keep harping about a about a legtimate business deal between a client and his lawyer and looking like the dog trying tocatch its tail .
Since the BLP yardflows can,t win on the ethics and legitimacy here come the”voice of thunder” miller pounding his chest while pontificating and barelling down the avenue of “tax evasion which not even the NATION has accused the any of the parties involved. to you miller i asked”are we there yet” mr ac had told me that the BLP yardfowls would look like fools debating this issue and noticed that OSA and MIA had ittle to say about the cheque which the yardfowls keep pecking on. CLUCK! CLUCK!
@ ac | July 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM |
“you guys/keep harping about a about a legitimate business deal between a client and his lawyer ”
As said to Amused the electorate and the suffering CLICO policyholders will have the final judgment on this matter.
The client’s case has already been eloquently pleaded in the highest court of the land: LP is an estimable gentleman who has been exceedingly instrumental in making CLICO a very well managed and profitable business conglomerate worthy of praise and highly recommended to the ordinary people as a vehicle for investing funds. He is not a leper and is deserving of our adulation and support not vile condemnation as if he is a leper to be avoided.
Now the jury is out and a verdict will soon be delivered.
@Amused
My friend you have said a lot but it does not make sense. Do you really believe the nonsense you have you have written. Do you think only pure blind supporters of the DLP read the blogs. On this issue you remind me of the house jester in our parliament.
Until the $3.3.million is satisfactorily explained, it must be labelled a suspicious transaction. It is instructive the recent comment by outgoing Central Bank of Trinidad
looka life miller.
Only tonight I repeated thatexact same phrase to a colleague “LP is an estimable gentleman ….”
The BLP only need to replay that over and over again this election cycle. 25,000 people are not to be take lightly anywhere, in any circumstance, in any condition.
Pingback: Owen Arthur Drops CLICO Bomb at West Terrace | Barbados Underground
the 3.3 million went back to the CEO from the lawyer. its time that policy holders file a class action suit against the directors CEO president vice president, L D, all of the politicians and lawyers knew what was going on with that company and withdrew all of their monies, the regulators F.S.C, supervisor of insurance, the government and the auditors are liable. the minister of finance allowed it to file fraudulent annual reports on its operations in Trinidad and not Barbados, the insurance industry needs cleaning up in that they should submit quarterly reports along with a recent bank statement for the corresponding period. The Financial Service Commission have to take some blame too for letting it withdrawn funds from its statutory liability fund that is require under the law to purchase land in Miami without its approval or that of the central bank
Pingback: CLICO: Is and Therefore | Barbados Underground