The allegation is that between April 29 and May 11, Wilfred Macheo, 19, of 12 Paradise, East Coast Demerara; Steven Gangadeen, 18, of 165 Diamond Housing Scheme, East Bank Demerara (EBD); Deodat Narine Rampersaud, 21, of 199 Grove Housing Scheme, EBD; Saisnarine Rampersaud, 22, of 199 Grove Housing Scheme, EBD, and 38-year-old Manniram Behari, a carpenter of 153 Grove Housing Scheme, EBD, with intent to defraud, obtained and received the sum of $1.4 million by a forged instrument from the Republic Bank account of Shira and Balram Modan.
Of the defendants, Gangadeen, Deodat Narine Rampersaud and Saisnarine Rampersaud were the only ones present at court yesterday. According to the trio, the other two accused were not notified by the police that they were required to attend court.
Gangadeen, Deodat Narine Rampersaud and Saisnarine Rampersaud all pleaded not guilty to a number of charges when they were read to them.
Several counts of obtaining money by fraudulent means were levelled against Beharry. The allegation is that between April 29 and May 11, he made, counselled and procured Saisnarine Rampersaud to obtain monies from the Republic Bank account of Shira and Balram Modan.
Attorneys-at-law Nigel Hughes, Vic Puran and Adrian Thompson appeared for the men in association with each other.
In his submissions, Hughes told the court that they are standing by the legal principle of “previously acquitted.” By this, he explained that “the men had repaid every cent to the bank in the previous matter thus its recent dismissal.” He added also that the previous case was dismissed for want of prosecution, stating that they were unable to provide witnesses in the matter and pointed to “lack of evidence”.
The prosecution said, however, that the charges for which the men now stand accused are “fresh” charges, and “they have now been charged under a totally different section as opposed to the first set of charges.
“My worship, the first were conspiracy charges while these are now obtaining money by forged instrument, they are totally different charges,” the prosecution maintained.
Hughes at this point interjected that the charges are out of pure malice, adding that he could not understand how after being repaid the money in full, his clients are now facing more charges.
“My worship, the bank cannot accept the money repaid…, not accord the court the decency of appearing even once and now spontaneously lay more charges. It’s an abuse of the process,” Hughes posited.
Puran in his submissions told the court that the defendants had already faced trial over what he termed “the identical subject matter.” Though the charges are laid under different sections, Puran forcefully stated that the particulars of the charge remain the same.
He went on to tell the magistrate that she has been vested with the jurisdiction to protect the court from an abuse of process.
“Really, what we have before us, Madam, are the same issues for consideration as the first case,” Puran stated.
Hughes then said that, “the prosecution, that is, the bank, has compromised its suit in that it has collected from these defendants all monies and should now be driven from its judgment seat.”
The attorneys then made an application that their clients be placed on modest bail on the grounds that they pose no risk of flight, have fixed addresses, have been in full cooperation with the police in their investigations and “most of all, the fact that the matter was previously dismissed.”
The prosecution did not object to the bail application made by the defence attorneys but requested that it be in a substantial sum.
The men were all subsequently placed on $100,000 bail each and ordered to return to court on November 6.
