The prosecution in the Peter Morgan drug case has argued that his three pre-trial motions should be rejected, claiming it has evidence linking the defendant with cocaine delivered in the UK and Canada and with Roger Khan as well as other Guyanese in whom the US has expressed an interest.
The government has also put Morgan on notice that it plans to call expert witnesses who would testify about the street value of the cocaine he allegedly conspired to traffic in and about money laundering.
In response to a memorandum Morgan filed last month seeking to depose witnesses in England and Guyana rather than have them turn up to testify at his trial, the prosecution quoted from a US case in which the judge ruled against taking foreign depositions until and unless the defendant submits affidavits or declarations from each witness which allows the court to assess both the claims of unavailability and the materiality of the proposed testimony.
The 42-year-old Morgan is facing a three-count indictment which accuses him of conspiring to import, possess and distribute five or more kilogrammes of cocaine between December 2001 and August 2003. He was nabbed in March 2007 in Trinidad where his lawyers said he had gone to visit relatives. However, he was in transit at that country’s airport when he was picked up by Trinidadian and US authorities. He was subsequently extradited on August 23, 2007 from Trinidad where he was represented by attorney-at-law Chris Mancini. His extradition came after he withdrew the last-ditch appeal he had made in the Port of Spain Appellate Court challenging it.
In his memorandum Morgan had said that the only reason he and his relatives travelled with large sums of foreign currency was because he benefited from favourable exchange rates using Guyana dollars to purchase foreign exchange which was then used to pay overseas suppliers of his company, Morgan Auto Sales.
He had said he wanted to use the testimonies of the owners and persons associated with his overseas suppliers to show that he was involved in legitimate business which had nothing to do with narcotics. In the memorandum filed through his lawyer, Alan Futerfas, Morgan had said that for almost 20 years he used market fluctuations to trade in currency for profit, as the unusual economic conditions in Guyana forced most businessmen in this country to pay vendors in other currency. He had claimed that his business, which was established in 1991, utilised the New York account of Sabena Manufacturing established by his father, James Morgan at the JP Morgan Chase Bank in 1985. Since the establishment of that bank account, Morgan and his relatives made over 60 trips to the US carrying large sums of US and Canadian dollars and British pounds totalling millions of dollars, all of which were declared.
But the government said Morgan has failed to show that the witnesses are truly unavailable and he did not describe any effort that he made to have the witnesses testify at trial. Instead, the government said Morgan made claims without detail or proof, that two of the witnesses are too ill to travel and the remaining witnesses will not come because they live and work elsewhere.
“This is inadequate to show unavailability,” the government said.
‘Material and Immaterial’
The government argued that the trial will focus on whether Morgan conspired to import and distribute cocaine in the US and whether he had a car business in Guyana before, during or after that time period was immaterial to the offences he is charged with. It was stated that based on the submissions Morgan has not identified any unavailable prospective witness who has any “material” testimony that relates to the charges.
And the government further argued that permitting Morgan to take the foreign deposition of a witness for the sole purpose of attempting to impeach a potential government witness does not demonstrate the existence of “exceptional circumstances” required by Rule 15.
The government said Morgan could testify about his company and he could also call witnesses in the US who could testify about the issues he wants his business associates in England to testify about, assuming they have any relevance.
The government pointed out that Morgan dealt with the person responsible for managing his US bank accounts, Sabrina Budhram, and although he did not mention doing business with vendors in the US the government had documents which showed that he imported trucks into Guyana from the US on behalf of drug accused Shaheed ‘Roger’ Khan.
According to the government, the evidence to be presented at trial will show that David and Susan Narine, citizens of Guyana, hired couriers to carry drugs from Guyana to the US which resulted in several seizures at the JFK airport and numerous arrests. “The evidence will also show that the Narines received dozens of kilogrammes of cocaine from the defendant; drugs supplied by the defendant were delivered to New York, as well as to Canada and the United Kingdom, and drug proceeds generated in the New York area were delivered to the laundered by the defendant’s sister Sabrina Budhram,” the court documents said. The government said it anticipates introducing testimony from cooperating and law enforcement witnesses, subpoenaed and seized documents and intercepted telephone calls between Sabrina Budhram, her husband, Arnold, several confidential informants, some of whom were held while taking cocaine into the US. The Budhrams pleaded guilty to money laundering and while the husband received three years of probation Sabrina was sentenced to one year and a day in prison.
‘Skepticism’
The government said the court should view with scepticism Morgan’s claim that the witnesses are unavailable considering the nature of their relationships to him. It was pointed out that one of the persons who the defendant claims is unavailable has been working for him for the last then years and still works for him.
“It seems incredible that an employee would not travel to testify at the trial of his own employer, if he is asked to do so and his travel expenses paid,” the government said.
And the government noted that the defendant is asking for depositions to be taken from his own mother, stepfather and brother and it asked the court to consider the relationship of the witnesses to Morgan when considering their “unavailability.” The other witnesses, according to Morgan, also have long-standing business relationships with his company and as such the government said it is unclear why they would not be willing to testify at his trial in order to preserve that relationship if Morgan asked them to do so and their travel expense are paid by him.
The government stated that the one witness, who is apparently not related, employed or doing business with Morgan is a Trinidadian.
Morgan had said that the woman was hired by the Narines after an advertisement was placed in the newspaper for a sitter. But the government said Morgan was insinuating that the woman was hired by the Narines to be a drug courier and she is a Trinidadian it is unclear why she is residing in Guyana and is willing to be deposed for the defendant, considering her own exposure to criminal liability. It was disclosed that the woman was arrested in Guyana attempting to board an out-bound flight to JFK airport on September 20, 2004 with approximately 16 kilogrammes of cocaine. The government said records indicated that the woman had made prior trips to the US and while is expected to testify about the “lies and misdeeds” of the Narines, who were both arrested in 2003. The government suggested that the court should also inquire whether the woman also has some employment or other relationship with Morgan and/or his family so that the court can assess the claim that she is unavailable to testify the trial.
‘Unclear’
Meanwhile, the government argued that it is unclear whether it is even possible to take depositions in Guyana, let alone what the procedure would be.
It pointed out that while the court in the Roger Khan matter authorised depositions in Guyana, with the understanding that the government could participate in the depositions by video conferencing and/or at the US Embassy the process is still pending as the Guyana High Court has not yet authorised it. And defence counsel in Khan’s case recently informed the court that it appears that any deposition authorised by Guyana court would have to occur in the courthouse, which has minimal security (including no metal detectors) and it seems doubtful whether counsel for the parties would be permitted to participate in the questioning.
The government pointed out that it is also unclear whether Guyanese law even permits foreign lawyers to take voluntary depositions in Guyana without a court order and as a result, to date, no depositions in Guyana have been taken in Khan’s case.
In addition, the government asked the court to consider whether the safety of the US officials might be compromised by coming to Guyana to conduct depositions. It said that there recently has been an escalation of “ethnic violence in Guyana, the police are unable to control this crime and security issues are a real concern, particularly in a case like this one which has attracted the attention of the press in Guyana.”
‘No basis’
Morgan in his memorandum asked the court to suppress the wiretap of the ‘subject telephone’ which interception the government says was duly authorised by the May 8, 2003 and June 12, 2003 orders of District Judge Jack B Weinstein. The government argues that wiretap orders are presumed valid and a reviewing court must accord substantial deference to a judicial officer’s finding that probable case exists.
According to the government, the wiretap at issue was authorised to investigate both money laundering and drug trafficking involved the ‘subject telephone’, which was at the Budhrams house located at 14 Drew Avenue, Floral Park, New York. It said this is the home of Sabrina Budhram and her husband and the occupants were using the residence and telephone to facilitate drug trafficking and money laundering.
Disclosing some of the wiretap information the government said a confidential informant (CI-1), who was arrested at JFK on August 28, 2002 on a flight from Guyana with 12 kilos of cocaine said that he/she had previously imported 17 kilos of cocaine from Guyana in December 2001and that Sabrina and ‘Andrew’ in Floral Park laundered drug proceeds for Guyanese drug organisations including that involving a relative of Morgan.
The government said the statements made by CI-1were corroborated, in part, by the fact that US agents were able to locate the house described in Floral Park. The statements were also corroborated by surveillance of the residence in October 2002 during which time agents observed unusual patterns of activity. Further corroboration of the informant statements were made by another informant (CI-5) the law enforcement officers did the relative present a completed currency reporting form. The relative stated that the money belonged to Sabena Manufacturing, a textile company, and Morgan Auto Sales. He also stated he was staying at Sabrina’s residence, an address shared by Sabena Manufacturing.
Sabena Manufacturing, the government said, did not appear to be a legitimate business even though TECS records indicate that over US$10 million had been declared by persons making trips on behalf of the company for which Sabrina Budhram was listed as secretary and vice-president in bank records. And a review of the company’s records for the period December 2001 to January 2003 showed significant regular deposits into the account and funds transfers from the account.
And another informant, CI-4, who was arrested at the JFK airport on or about February 4, 2003 on a flight from Guyana with six kilos of cocaine, told law enforcement officers that a known businessman, who has had run-ins with the law in Guyana, was supposed to pick him/her up at the airport and take him/her to his home.
The informant said he/she had previously made a successful cocaine smuggling trip for the businessman in May 2002 and that he/she previously had been taken to the businessman’s residence and that CI-4 saw that the businessman kept drug proceeds in shoe boxes.
CI-4’s statements were corroborated by the fact that he/she had the businessman’s address and phone number in his/her luggage at time of arrest and TECS records confirmed CI-4’s previous trip to Guyana on or about May 2002. Phone records also showed calls from the businessman’s residence to the Budhrams’ residence in May and June 2002. Records also showed calls from the businessman’s residence to the Budhram’s residence on February 13, 2003, shortly before and shortly after agents observed an unknown female arrive and drop shoe boxes off at the residence, which agents believed contained drug proceeds based on the statements of CI-4 regarding how the businessman stored money.
According to the government, on February 14, 2003, agents observed a woman pick up a bag containing show boxes from the Budhram’s residence, deliver it to the residence of another man who had flown to Guyana on February 21, 2003.
‘Corroborate’
The government pointed out that while Morgan implies that the information provided by confidential informants was unreliable, the agents were able to corroborate information provided through other informants, surveillance, TECS records and bank records.
According to the government, in his motion, Morgan does not point to any material misstatement in the wiretap affidavit or argue that the affidavit does not set forth probable cause. The government said that even if Morgan Auto Sales was engaged in legitimate business in Guyana, the information is not material as it does not affect the determination that probable cause existed to believe that the occupants of the subject resident, including Sabrina Budhram, were using the telephone at the house to engage in drug trafficking and money laundering.
The government argued that while Morgan claimed that his business used the US account of Sabena Manufacturing to pay expenses, that did not mean that all of the money declared by travellers to the US for Sabena Manufacturing was attributable to the two companies. It was noted that bank records for Sabena Manufacturing did not appear to make any explicit references to wire transfers on behalf of Morgan Auto Sales.
In the wire-tap affidavit, the government said, law enforcement officials could not find any evidence of importing, exporting or manufacturing by Sabena Manufacturing, despite Morgan’s relative claims that the company was a textile company which imported raw materials into the US. It was pointed out that Morgan did not even claim that Sabena Manufacturing had business of its own during the time period discussed in the wiretap affidavit that generated income, but argued that the agents should have assumed that legitimate business activity was occurring because the company’s bank records showed wire transfers to foreign banks.
The government said Morgan also claimed that the burden was on the agent to determine that the company was using its bank account to pay bills for his company and notify the court of the fact. However, the government argued that payments to legitimate vendors are not uncommon in money laundering schemes as the whole point of money laundering is to insert illegal proceeds into the banking system and disguise the origins.
And while Morgan in his motion cited problems encountered with using Guyana dollars to purchase goods abroad and the unfavourable exchange rates offered by banks in Guyana, the government said it simply illustrates “how drug dealers in Guyana, like those in Colombia, could take advantage of a black-market currency exchange to launder drug proceeds” with individuals paying Guyana dollars in Guyana in order to have drug dollars in the United States wired to accounts across the world to pay for legitimate expenditure.”
Expert witness
And the government said it anticipates calling a chemist from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) laboratory to testify regarding the weight and purity of narcotics seized in the case. It was disclosed that an expert witness will also testify that the amount of cocaine involved in the case is an amount consistent with distribution and not personal use. The drug expert is also expected to testify about the monetary value of the amount of drugs involved in the case, including the wholesale value and the street value of such drugs. The government also anticipates calling an expert to testify regarding drug smuggling methods and practices and drug importation organisations.
A money laundering expert may also be called to testify by the government and the testimony the government intends to elicit from the expert will include general background information about the basic money laundering methods, how drug money is typically packaged and transferred from the narcotics traffickers to money launderers, and the types of documents and records generated by money launderers. The government said that the experts likely will all be employees of ICE and/ or DEA, and their specific identities and qualifications will be provided after a trial date is selected.
