Members of the jury heard closing arguments on Friday in a fraud case where Craig Owen Major is accused of attempting to obtain $700 million dollars from his former employers SG Hambros Bank and Trust Limited.
Justice Jon Isaacs presided over the case, which continued from Tuesday to Friday.
The former Chief Operations Manager at the Trust company faced charges of forgery, uttering a forged document and attempting to obtain credit through fraud.
The particulars alleged that Major forged a Memorandum of Understanding dated April 7, 1999, purporting it to be genuine between April 1, 1999 and May 1, 1999.
The document was uttered between the same periods. Further allegations from the Crown are that the accused with intent to defraud, attempted to obtain from SG Hambros Bank and Trust, credit of $700 million for Manitech Consultants Limited by falsely representing that the signature of Pascal Hammerer on the Memorandum of Understanding was genuine.
Prosecuting the case for the Crown was Jillian Williams of the Attorney General’s office, assisted by Stephanie Pintard while, defence attorneys for Major were Charles McKay, Raphael Moxey and Elma Campbell.
Williams addressed the jurors, first explaining to them the charges against the accused. She said that the prosecution charged that the signature on the document was forged because it was made without the authority or authorization of Pascal Hammerer former Chief Executive Officer of the Trust company.
Hammerer who testified in the case stated that the forged signature was not one of his signatures, as he had a business and personal signature.
Serena Eldon- Fernander also testified that the signature on the Memorandum was not that of Hammerer’s. She said that the Memorandum, along with handwriting specimens from the employees, except Major, was handed over to a handwriting specialist for analysis.
She submitted that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove Major wrote the forged signature. Williams said that it did not matter if Major forged the signature of if he got someone else to do it, if the jury found that he was responsible for the signature then he was guilty of the crime.
She said that guilt could also be found based on circumstantial evidence, which she outlined in the case.
She submitted that it was clear from the evidence, why the defendant would have wanted to forge the signature or allow someone else to do it, was because he did not get the necessary approval from Hammerer or other personnel.
For a major transaction of $700M in credit she said, it was no doubt that the approval would have had to come from the Chairman of SG Hambros who was not in Nassau.
The prosecutor said another circumstance was that it was the defendant who was found in possession of the document on April 7, 1999, which he tendered to Don Demeritte with the signature already affixed.
She questioned whether it was a matter of convenience for Major to not being familiar with the signature of Hammerer. She said, “He ought to have been familiar with Hammerer’s signature.”
With regard to the document being left on Hammerer’s secretary’s desk, which he later picked up with the signature already attached, she said no document was placed on the desk nor was it given to Hammerer. She stated that Major agreed on the stand that it was company’s policy not leave important documents lying around. She told the jury that the Memorandum should be viewed as an important document.
When looking at the circumstance of Major leaving the document on Eldon’s desk and retrieving it at a later time she said, “it’s a lie.”
Williams also pointed out that Major was the contact for Manitech and he lunched with them on the day the Memorandum of Understanding was signed.
After everything was put together and added up she said it pointed to the defendant as the person who knew about the document and that the signature was false.
She told the jurors that Major would like for them to believe that from the mentioned document no one had anything to gain.
She further stated that with the $700M credit line, which Major sought to obtain for Manitech or himself, it did not make sense that no one had nothing to gain. She admonished the jurors to “use (their) common sense.”
With respect to the addendum she said that it removed a clause from the original document, which prevented the withdrawal of funds against the account.
She said that the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding was to deceive SG Hambros as the document had a forged signature it was uttered and that “it was a document to bind the bank.”
“It was just preliminary steps,” she said concrete steps which were taken by Major. She said that it was safe for the jury to infer that Major attempted to obtain the funds from the bank.
In wrapping up her address she told the jury to consider all the evidence of the case and return with a true verdict.
Defence attorney Charles McKay in his address told the jury that the prosecution mentioned nothing about the number of signatures, which Hammerer possessed.
He pointed out that nobody saw anyone sign Hammerer’s signature to the document and that the evidence made no linkages or inferences as the prosecution hoped.
The defence attorney said that it was a situation where Manitech was opening a bank account, depositing monies and drawing down the account on a line of credit.
He said the clause in Memorandum of Understanding stated that monies had to be on the account before it could be drawn against and also Manitech had to have funds there to remove them.
McKay said that the position that Hammerer signed the document was one which never changed. However he said Eldon changed her evidence when she came to court.
“The defendant’s position has been constant,” he said.
With regard to important documents being left around, despite company policy said the jury would have to assess the defendant’s relationship with Eldon.
He next pointed out intent to defraud and what elements of loss and gain were.
“There would be no gain based on the Memorandum of Understanding,” McKay said. He stated that Manitech was putting their money along with Letters of Guarantee into the Bank or Trust.
He said there was no evidence to suggest SG Hambros lost money and he further submitted that no evidence was produced to say the Memorandum of Understanding was a negotiable instrument.
The attorney alerted the jury that all elements of the prosecution’s case had to satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt before they could convict.
He admonished jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
By Jimenita Swain, The Nassau Guardian
