IS THE LAW CLOSING IN ON PANDAY?

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PORT OF SPAIN 000411

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR WHA/CAR

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KCRM KCOR TD
SUBJECT: IS THE LAW CLOSING IN ON PANDAY?


1. (U) SUMMARY: The much-awaited corruption trial for UNC
Party Chairman and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday's trial
has begun. Panday is on trial for knowingly failing to
disclose his interest in a London bank account as required
by the Integrity in Public Life Act. Panday claimed he had
no knowledge of USD$200,000 funneled into the account by
businessman and UNC contributor Lawrence Duprey, allegedly
with no quid pro quo expected. Arguing that other officials
have violated the act while only he has been prosecuted,
Panday alleged politically-motivated selective enforcement.
However, the state pointed to conflicting statements he had
made in his defense and showed how he had submitted false
declarations while others had simply made listing errors in
their submissions. The ruling is scheduled for April 24.
END SUMMARY.


2. (U) Following three and a half years of legal challenges
and court adjournments, the trial of opposition United
National Congress (UNC) Party Chairman and parliamentary
party leader Basdeo Panday began on March 20. Panday is on
trial before chief magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls for
knowingly failing to disclose a London bank account to the
Integrity Commission in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, in
accordance with the Integrity in Public Life Act, which
requires all public officials to disclose annually their
income, assets and liabilities.


3. (U) During the six-day hearing, Panday testified that,
in 1989, he had traveled to London for heart surgery and,
while there, he and his wife Oma opened a joint bank account
and deposited in it TTD$85,000 (USD$14,200) destined to pay
for his medical care. According to Panday, after all his
medical bills were paid, he had no further knowledge of any
transactions that may have taken place in the account, until
he began preparing his legal defense. Only then did his
wife draw his attention to the fact that, in 1997, she had
asked Lawrence Duprey, head of CLICO, a large and successful
Caribbean conglomerate with global reach, for TT$1.2 million
(USD$200,000.) in scholarship money to pay for their
daughters' education in London. Duprey, a major contributor
to the UNC, obliged and, on March 27, corroborated Panday's
testimony, confirming that Oma had indeed approached him
with the request for funds. Moreover, Duprey refuted the
claim by lead state prosecutor Timothy Cassel that,
seemingly in exchange for his generosity, Duprey requested
favors from Panday in connection with projects in the energy
sector.


4. (U) Panday's lead attorney Allan Newman argued that his
client's prosecution was part of a "political agenda"
designed to oust him from his UNC leadership position and
that the decision to charge him constituted an abuse of
process. Panday was charged on September 18, 2002, less
than one month before the October 7, 2002 parliamentary
election. As it turned out, the PNM won the October 7
election with a majority of 20 seats over the UNC's 16
seats.


5. (U) Newman entered several Integrity Commission reports
as evidence into the record, showing that, during the past
10 years a number of other top officials, including Attorney
General John Jeremie, had failed to file declarations of
their income, assets and liabilities with the Integrity
Commission or had omitted to declare specific assets to the
commission; yet to date, only Panday had been charged under
the Integrity in Public Life Act. In addition, Integrity
Commission Registrar Albert Alkins testified that another
senior government minister had omitted to declare his
investments in 12 different companies. Alkins informed the
court that failure to file a declaration constitutes just as
serious a violation of the law as making a false
declaration, as demonstrated by the fact that both offences
carry the identical penalty.


6. (U) However, lead state prosecutor Timothy Cassel
rebutted Newman's arguments, stating that Newman was
"comparing like with unlike." According to Cassel, Panday
was charged with failing to disclose an asset and thereby
filing a false declaration, as opposed, for example, to
Attorney General John Jeremie who had listed a particular
registrable interest but failed to list it in the correct
location on the form. This was also the case for the senior
government minister mentioned earlier. In addition, Cassel
pointed to 22 letters Panday had sent to the Integrity
Commission, which conflicted with statements he had
submitted earlier, all allegedly in order to cover for his
failure to declare the London bank account.


7. (U) Chief magistrate Sherman Mc Nicolls is scheduled to
rule on the case, on April 24. If Panday is convicted, he

PORT OF SP 00000411 002 OF 002


will face a fine of TTD$20,000.(USD$3,333.) on each count
and up to 2 years imprisonment. If sentenced to more than 1
year in jail, Panday would be automatically disqualified
from the lower house of Parliament.


8. (SBU) COMMENT: Despite Panday's public image as a shady
and possibly corrupt wheeler-dealer, this is the first time
he has actually landed in court. His allegations of
selective enforcement of the disclosure provisions of the
Integrity in Public Life Act may have some truth in them.
However, they in no way shield him from what seems to be his
own culpability under the act. It is simply not credible
that he had no knowledge of Lawrence Duprey's infusion of
USD$200,000 into his London bank account. Who did he think
was paying for his daughters' education? His argument of
selective enforcement may slightly reduce his vulnerability
to PNM charges that he is corrupt, but will certainly not
inoculate him completely. The "everybody does it" defense
does, however, indicate how the UNC plans to confront
corruption charges during the next election campaign. END
COMMENT.


AUSTIN