Gold Board defends dealer’s licence to Adolphus Mining

The Guyana Gold Board (GGB) yesterday defended the issuing of a dealer’s licence to Adolphus Mining Inc saying that a 2011 gold incident connected to it did not result in any charges or fines.

In a statement yesterday, the GGB said it had  been drawn to its attention that there was an online news item in relation to the issuance of a dealer’s licence to Adolphus Mining, Inc. It did not cite the source of the information.

The GGB  confirmed that a dealer’s licence was approved by the board for Adolphus Mining, Inc. for 2019.  It said that Travis Chase is a director of said entity.

It added that in the instance of Adolphus Mining, Inc., the GGB management and directorate conducted the required due diligence which is done for all existing dealers, and any applicants for the issuance of a dealer’s licence.

“The management and board were aware of the circumstances surrounding a quantity of gold that was brought before the then GGB management in 2011.  With regard to the gold from 2011, additional due diligence revealed that: 1) the holder of that gold was the producer, now licensed as a dealer; 2) all reports and ensuing official inquiries, at that time (and by the current board), relative to that gold indicated the  miner and his gold holding involved a private conflict; 3) the gold was weighed at the GGB and full payment was made at market rates prevailing in 2011; and 4) there were neither charges nor court matters nor convictions nor fines nor anything prejudicial levied in relation to that gold”, the GGB said.

It said that all of the aforementioned were part of the review and approval process by management and the directorate of the GGB in 2018/19. 

“There was nothing that militated materially against, or that did serve as an effective bar to the issuance of a gold dealer’s licence to Adolphus Mining, Inc”, the statement said. 

The GGB added that it is concerned that it was not consulted for clarification prior to the release and publication of the news item, “which both invades the privacy of the parties named, and casts a number of unfounded aspersions”.