Mohamed Bin Hammam and Jack Warner charged by FIFA over alleged bribes

[Jayerson]

The thing is, Bin Hammam had already left when this bribe money was passed. In addition to which, I vaguely remember Jack Warner saying in an interview on the last day of the CFU meeting that member would be accused of getting money, getting cars, getting barrells of oil etc. Do I remember this correctly?

Well BH already looks to be in the clear with his statements as to what he spent and why.  Which makes the whole thing even more strange because that would mean (going solely by what has been made public) that JW put the rest of the "bribe" from either his or CFU's funds.  If anything the way the info has come out so far it seems as if the $40K that all are alleged to have recieved was a reward for attending as opposed to being for votes.  With all the headlines and posturing I have yet to read anywhere that anyone was explicitly told collect something outside fuh supporting the future president of FIFA whom you'll be voting for.  Ah vaguely remember reading something so in troot though Jay

That's how its coming across to me also. Just like the Lord Triesman allegations, Jack Warner never told them he'll vote for them if they did X, Y, Z. So far, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Bermuda etc have not come out and actually said that. In addition to which, the bulk of the CFU have said they did not receive any bribes or indcuements.

Also, how does one define or limit the paramaters of a bribe? What's so different from one federation agreeing to play another federation's national team, an event that would be a high profile, high revenue generating venture in the hope that such an agreement induces that said federation to vote/influence voting towards their WC bid? God knows where the bulk of that money went to. 

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

The thing is, Bin Hammam had already left when this bribe money was passed. In addition to which, I vaguely remember Jack Warner saying in an interview on the last day of the CFU meeting that member would be accused of getting money, getting cars, getting barrells of oil etc. Do I remember this correctly?

Well BH already looks to be in the clear with his statements as to what he spent and why.  Which makes the whole thing even more strange because that would mean (going solely by what has been made public) that JW put the rest of the "bribe" from either his or CFU's funds.  If anything the way the info has come out so far it seems as if the $40K that all are alleged to have recieved was a reward for attending as opposed to being for votes.  With all the headlines and posturing I have yet to read anywhere that anyone was explicitly told collect something outside fuh supporting the future president of FIFA whom you'll be voting for.  Ah vaguely remember reading something so in troot though Jay

That's how its coming across to me also. Just like the Lord Triesman allegations, Jack Warner never told them he'll vote for them if they did X, Y, Z. So far, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Bermuda etc have not come out and actually said that. In addition to which, the bulk of the CFU have said they did not receive any bribes or indcuements.

Also, how does one define or limit the paramaters of a bribe? What's so different from one federation agreeing to play another federation's national team, an event that would be a high profile, high revenue generating venture in the hope that such an agreement induces that said federation to vote/influence voting towards their WC bid? God knows where the bulk of that money went to. 

Doh tell meh da was an attempted bribe too nah 

Jack might be ah money grubbing nastiness buh he eh no dunce.  De shit dey trying here is what yuh does nail inexperienced corn artists with, not big fish like Jack.  Blazer will end up feelin rell schupid when it's all over if he doh have something more concrete to hold JW over the fire with.  This is good drama buh it also really designed to take advantage of people hatred of JW so as to cause a groundswell of outcry to get him out.  Problem with that though is that they need more than outcry as that has been fully exhausted but to no avail.

[Bakes]

"if they wiring it into your bank account then what the bank have to ask you about your money?"

Actually, every bank from nations signed up to the International anti-money laundering agreements and cross border financial transaction legislation (which is probably around 160 countries) have to, by law, investigate any irregular transactions. Under the "know your customer" guidelines, an unusual large transaction should be questioned. Now if you usually have a bank balance of $500 and you suddenly receive $10,000, they may not question it, but if you receive $100,000 or $10,000 per week, they have a duty to check this out.

Usually, they would check the source of the funds and if it was legitimate, then nothing would be said. If they are unsure, their first option is to invite you to the bank on the premise that your money is in an under performing account and they would offer you higher interest bearing accounts as well as financial planning advice. At this meeting they would ask the source of funds (which, of course, you don't have to declare).

If this meeting does not satisfy the bank or you do not attend, the bank will then report the unusual activity to the police financial crimes department and monitor your accounts.

There are very severe financial penalties for banks that do not initiate anti money laundering procedures and usually the bank official responsible would be fired if he doesn't follow the simple procedures in place.

NB: In the UK, any financial adviser and estate agent also has to adhere to these guidelines or face prosecution. I have completed many money laundering checks for sums from £10,000 to £500,000 and have never had any client not co operate. If anyone did fail to co operate I would have had to refuse to complete the business as I would be breaking laws. I only ever reported one client to the financial services investigators because I was suspicious of the source of funds.

As I have said before, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem?

What is the definition of "irregular activity"?  Clearly receiving large deposits on a weekly or monthly basis is not by definition "irregular".  Nor does any of your scenarios apply to Jack Warner since he regularly conducts business involving wire transfers into and out of the country, presumably in large quantities.  I can tell you categorically that banks here in the US cannot unilaterally reveal any of our personal business with the bank to the police... or anyone else, or risk suit for breach of confidentiality/privacy.  Nor can the police access that information without a warrant.

As I have said before, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem?

As I'VE said before, this is just stupid... and I see no point in further addressing it.  If the police randomly pull you over and ask to search your person, you're probably the type to meekly comply without question, never mind the violation of your rights.

[Football supporter]

1. "Irregular transactions" was my terminology. As legal people drafted the legislation theres probably a whole paragraph to more acurately describe it.

2. USA and UK have the tightest anti financial crime legislation/laws/whatever else the terminology is. I strongly suggest that if you check, every bank in the USA has to adhere to the stringent money laundering laws in place or risk large fines. They do monitor large or unusual transactions and they do report this to the authorities.

3. Despite your protest about your personal rights being infringed, these laws are used to track and arrest terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers etc. I am 100% in favour of the authorities ability to ask me any damn question they want if it means my family and friends live in a safer environment. I actually feel very strongly about civil rights and personal privacy, but I have absoloutely no problem with my bank or the police knowing the source of my funds.

The whole point of this is that as far as we can determine US$1 million was floating around in Trinidad. If Warner had withdrew this sum from his bank and it can be proved the money was offered as a bribe, a link has been made. Whether or not a crime has been committed, it certainly is not appropriate behaviour for a politician. However, I don't think Jack withdrew the money, I'm guessing bin Hammam brought the cash into T&T. As you are aware, this is illegal. I can see no reason why Warner would use his cash to attempt to bribe CFU officials. I'm sure if he just asked, they would back him. bin Hammam on the other hand, would certainly see the benefit of having a block vote of 25 from CFU.

[Bakes]

1. "Irregular transactions" was my terminology. As legal people drafted the legislation theres probably a whole paragraph to more acurately describe it.

No offense, but this is really becoming pointless.  You feel that Jack must have broken some law... any law... and we can find out what law he broke until we investigate further.  In short you think the police should go digging until they uncover something.  That's just not the way the law operates.

2. USA and UK have the tightest anti financial crime legislation/laws/whatever else the terminology is. I strongly suggest that if you check, every bank in the USA has to adhere to the stringent money laundering laws in place or risk large fines. They do monitor large or unusual transactions and they do report this to the authorities.

Well I've never worked for the Treasury Department or the SEC, but as I told you... there is no law that authorizes financial institutions to reveal their customers' personal information without a warrant founded on probable cause that a crime has occurred.  I don't have to check anything... I can tell you that for fact.  Of course they have to adhere to money laundering laws... just not your personal definition or feeling as to what constitutes money laundering.  There are laws against money laundering here in the US and perhaps the most familiar is requirement for banks to report all transactions over $10,000, and penalties for structuring transactions so as to evade scrutiny.

3. Despite your protest about your personal rights being infringed, these laws are used to track and arrest terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers etc. I am 100% in favour of the authorities ability to ask me any damn question they want if it means my family and friends live in a safer environment. I actually feel very strongly about civil rights and personal privacy, but I have absoloutely no problem with my bank or the police knowing the source of my funds.

I'm sorry, but you haven't the faintest clue as to what you're talking about... you'd be very surprised at what the reality actually yields.  NYC police use the same rational to harrass minorities in Time Square by routinely stopping and frisking them and not doing the same to white pedestrians.  Worse, they keep the personal information of the people they stop on file, even the ones who are not found with weapons or contraband in their possession.  The Dep't of Homeland Security for years used similar laws to routinely eavesdrop on the phone conversations of private individuals... when finally challenged in court the yield of the programs were far outweighed by the cost to the privacy of the public at large and the victims of the eavesdropping specifically.  Communist China and Russia are relatively crime free... as are Iran and North Korea. There the police have the very same rights as you advocate... if it bothers you that much then why not pack up your family and move them there?  A free Democratic society clearly isn't the place for you.  In fact why don't we just have the police come rouse us from sleep whenever they want and go thru our homes... can you imagine how many drug dealers and illegal gun owners we could put behind bars if we did that?

The whole point of this is that as far as we can determine US$1 million was floating around in Trinidad. If Warner had withdrew this sum from his bank and it can be proved the money was offered as a bribe, a link has been made. Whether or not a crime has been committed, it certainly is not appropriate behaviour for a politician. However, I don't think Jack withdrew the money, I'm guessing bin Hammam brought the cash into T&T. As you are aware, this is illegal. I can see no reason why Warner would use his cash to attempt to bribe CFU officials. I'm sure if he just asked, they would back him. bin Hammam on the other hand, would certainly see the benefit of having a block vote of 25 from CFU.

What is so hard for you to understand?  If Bin Hammam wired the money to Jack and Jack then took the money out of his account and paid these bribes as alleged, how is he using his own money?  If Bim Hammam brought the cash into the country then he broke TnT laws and Jack didn't... you still don't achieve your objective.  Whether you think paying bribes Is "appropriate behaviour" or not is besides the point... it still isn't the smoking gun you hope it to be.  In fact, under the worst of scenarios... Jack himself brought $1 million into the country w/o declaring it, there still is no smoking gun because you simply cannot prove it.  Jack Warner is a multi millionaire with a large real estate portfolio.  Explaining the source of his money will not be a problem for him.  He could easily say that he had the money in a hole under his house, deposited over time... and we'd have no way of disproving anything he said.

[fitzinho]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

[Football supporter]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

Yeah, and we're both getting tired of it lol. I guess we have to agree to disagree! Bakes, you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong and all this time, they still ain't catch no one!!

[davyjenny1]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

If again! is better they have a live debate or a town hall meeting

[Bakes]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

Yeah, and we're both getting tired of it lol. I guess we have to agree to disagree! Bakes, you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong and all this time, they still ain't catch no one!!

The difference is that one of us is armed with facts... not conjecture 




 

[Football supporter]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

Yeah, and we're both getting tired of it lol. I guess we have to agree to disagree! Bakes, you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong and all this time, they still ain't catch no one!!

The difference is that one of us is armed with facts... not conjecture 




 

No comment 

[Football supporter]

Speaking of town hall debates, I bumped into Tansley Thompson today. He said there is a meeting at the PoS town hall on saturday to discuss T&T football including TTFF and the Jack Warner situation. All are welcome including current and ex professional players.

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

If again! is better they have a live debate or a town hall meeting

FS go lose doh, because he arguing morals and emotions not facts.  Up to now I still want to know what potential proof is available that JW broke any laws?  So far nothing but smoke and mirrors in an attempt to get people like FS hot and bothered enough to call for investigations because of the animous they hold for de teflon stutterah!

[Football supporter]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

If again! is better they have a live debate or a town hall meeting

FS go lose doh, because he arguing morals and emotions not facts.  Up to now I still want to know what potential proof is available that JW broke any laws?  So far nothing but smoke and mirrors in an attempt to get people like FS hot and bothered enough to call for investigations because of the animous they hold for de teflon stutterah!

FK, firstly I am 100% sure about certain facts, but I think Bakes, myself and everyone on this forum were becoming bored with the whole debate.

Secondly, I come from a country where any sniff of scandal and wrongdoing is pounced on, investigated and published. Usually, a politician would have been politely asked to resign immediately the media grab hold of such a story. Now this may not always be fair, but the voting public have a right to know if their M.P.s are involved in dubious activities. All I have said is that this whole scenario looks suspicious. If there is a reasonable explanation, then this should be offered. Mr Warner has not offered a reasonable explanation. Not one word has been mentioned about the source of the US$1 million. Nor the missing US$100,000 (difference between the amount bin Hammam says he sent and the amount Warner says he received). Now I'm damn sure that any organisation in the world would simply issue a press release to clear things up. But CFU can't do this because they would then be admitting that money was offered. So people are making sworn affidavits concerning cash that CFU can't admit exists. If, as some officials have stated, this was a CFU grant, why doesn't the CFU come out and explain this? So it leads you to speculate and assume (always a dangerous activity) that there was money changing hands but this can't be admitted because it may appear to be bribery, the money may be from an undeclared source and the money could also have been taken out of T&T without declaration.
I don't care if it was Jack, Camps or the doubles seller in St James, someone either has to categorically deny this speculation or it should be investigated. Just saying it didn't happen is not sufficient.

[ribbit]

"if they wiring it into your bank account then what the bank have to ask you about your money?"

Actually, every bank from nations signed up to the International anti-money laundering agreements and cross border financial transaction legislation (which is probably around 160 countries) have to, by law, investigate any irregular transactions. Under the "know your customer" guidelines, an unusual large transaction should be questioned. Now if you usually have a bank balance of $500 and you suddenly receive $10,000, they may not question it, but if you receive $100,000 or $10,000 per week, they have a duty to check this out.

Usually, they would check the source of the funds and if it was legitimate, then nothing would be said. If they are unsure, their first option is to invite you to the bank on the premise that your money is in an under performing account and they would offer you higher interest bearing accounts as well as financial planning advice. At this meeting they would ask the source of funds (which, of course, you don't have to declare).

If this meeting does not satisfy the bank or you do not attend, the bank will then report the unusual activity to the police financial crimes department and monitor your accounts.

There are very severe financial penalties for banks that do not initiate anti money laundering procedures and usually the bank official responsible would be fired if he doesn't follow the simple procedures in place.

NB: In the UK, any financial adviser and estate agent also has to adhere to these guidelines or face prosecution. I have completed many money laundering checks for sums from £10,000 to £500,000 and have never had any client not co operate. If anyone did fail to co operate I would have had to refuse to complete the business as I would be breaking laws. I only ever reported one client to the financial services investigators because I was suspicious of the source of funds.

As I have said before, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem?

What is the definition of "irregular activity"?  Clearly receiving large deposits on a weekly or monthly basis is not by definition "irregular".  Nor does any of your scenarios apply to Jack Warner since he regularly conducts business involving wire transfers into and out of the country, presumably in large quantities.  I can tell you categorically that banks here in the US cannot unilaterally reveal any of our personal business with the bank to the police... or anyone else, or risk suit for breach of confidentiality/privacy.  Nor can the police access that information without a warrant.

bakes, FS know what he talking about. AML detection is standard practice for de banking industry. if yuh want privacy, hide yur money in yur mattress. doh expect privacy from a bank.

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

If again! is better they have a live debate or a town hall meeting

FS go lose doh, because he arguing morals and emotions not facts.  Up to now I still want to know what potential proof is available that JW broke any laws?  So far nothing but smoke and mirrors in an attempt to get people like FS hot and bothered enough to call for investigations because of the animous they hold for de teflon stutterah!

FK, firstly I am 100% sure about certain facts, but I think Bakes, myself and everyone on this forum were becoming bored with the whole debate.

Secondly, I come from a country where any sniff of scandal and wrongdoing is pounced on, investigated and published. Usually, a politician would have been politely asked to resign immediately the media grab hold of such a story. Now this may not always be fair, but the voting public have a right to know if their M.P.s are involved in dubious activities. All I have said is that this whole scenario looks suspicious. If there is a reasonable explanation, then this should be offered. Mr Warner has not offered a reasonable explanation. Not one word has been mentioned about the source of the US$1 million. Nor the missing US$100,000 (difference between the amount bin Hammam says he sent and the amount Warner says he received). Now I'm damn sure that any organisation in the world would simply issue a press release to clear things up. But CFU can't do this because they would then be admitting that money was offered. So people are making sworn affidavits concerning cash that CFU can't admit exists. If, as some officials have stated, this was a CFU grant, why doesn't the CFU come out and explain this? So it leads you to speculate and assume (always a dangerous activity) that there was money changing hands but this can't be admitted because it may appear to be bribery, the money may be from an undeclared source and the money could also have been taken out of T&T without declaration.
I don't care if it was Jack, Camps or the doubles seller in St James, someone either has to categorically deny this speculation or it should be investigated. Just saying it didn't happen is not sufficient.

That is all well and good but guess what, the pressumption of innocence exists no matter who you are.  So not because this new alliance say "we were bribed" means he has to explain to anyone what occured.  Would we like to kno, hell yeah buh dat do mean JW obligated to explain to us.  Up till now no one has offered anything that would legally have JW in the position of having offered a bribe to anyone.  Apart from that FIFA business is not T&T government business, so again he owes no explanation.  As far as banking standards go I'm willing to bet JW handles very large sums so there is nothing suspiscious about what was wired / recieved, so nothing to explain there.  Having cash has never been a crime no matter how much it is, so that by itself is not and should not be presumed to be suspiscious.  If there is an allegation loged by a source believed to be genuine then maybe it is worth investigation but until such happens why is JW expected to eplain or respond?  I am sure you have your experience in banking and much of what you say is factual as pertinent to the industry in general, but there certainly are different scales of application when using termas as irregular ad suspcious no?  Where you come from they have the power to villify simply based on rumours but it isn't like that everywhere.  JW is underhanded and grimey yes, but that has never been against the law and cannot be used to force his hand in responding to a matter that has not materialized into anything solid with regard to wrongdoing.

[dreamer]

Plot thickens in FIFA bribery scandal
Trinidad Guardian
Published: Tue, 2011-06-14 


At least four more Caribbean countries have admitted they were offered thousands of dollars in cash as the plot thickens into the most explosive bribery scandal in the history of FIFA. With the investigation into the bribes-for-votes sensation that led to the temporary suspensions of FIFA vice-president Jack Warner and Asian football chief Mohamed Bin Hammam about to be switched from Miami to the Bahamas, Insideworldfootball has learned that more and more federations who attended the infamous meeting on May 10 and 11—where the money was allegedly paid—have now come forward and handed it back. The countries concerned are not being named but follow last week’s frank admission by Louis Giskus, President of Suriname’s soccer association, that his FA received $40,000 (£24,000) “in $100 bills in a brown envelope” when Caribbean Football Union (CFU) members convened in Trinidad, organised by Warner.

The CFU, part of the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf), were in Trinidad being wooed by Bin Hammam who at the time was running against Sepp Blatter for the FIFA Presidency before pulling out. Warner and Bin Hammam, suspended by FIFA’s Ethics Committee pending a full inquiry, deny any allegations of wrongdoing and will learn their ultimate fate at another hearing in July. They claim they have the support of 13 Caribbean federations but the net appears to be closing in on both of them—and several others. “We all saw the story about Surinam giving the money back and my understanding is that there are at least four more,” a reliable source close to the investigation told insideworldfootball. “It could be as many as six.” The initial report to FIFA by a US law firm commissioned by Concacaf general secretary and whistleblower Chuck Blazer named four countries that had allegedly been offered $40,000 (£24,000) in cash and turned it down.

Since then both Surinam and Puerto Rico have publicly acknowledged they were offered similar inducements. “Add these new four and you have a possible ten of 25,” said the source. Amid all the turmoil, attempts by Warner’s camp to remove Blazer failed, as did initial efforts to put Lisle Austin, a staunch Warner ally, in charge of Concacaf in the interim. Austin, banned by FIFA for allegedly breaking the rules, tried to get a civil injunction allowing him to resume his duties. But FIFA officially endorsed Alfredo Hawit of Honduras as the acting head of the Confederation while at the same time calling for all the in-fighting to end. The next move would appear to be individual interviews with Caribbean nations within the next ten days, a meeting Warner says he will not attend. He insists any suggestion of bribery is totally out of order but is gaining less and less support for the alternative view that the money, claimed to have been paid by bin Hammam, was for legitimate development projects rather than to solicit votes for the 62-year-old Qatari’s campaign against Blatter.

.

[dreamer]

TT Police writes to Fifa
Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday
By Nalinee Seelal
Tuesday, June 14 2011


Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs yesterday kept good on his promise and wrote to FIFA to solicit information regarding allegations that undeclared sums of monies, namely US currency, entered Trinidad and Tobago sometime in May.

The letter was written early yesterday on behalf of the Commissioner, and was expected to be sent to FIFA by mid-afternoon.

The letter was written to FIFA following a call by Leader of the Opposition, Dr Keith Rowley, for the police to probe allegations that large sums of US monies came into this country to be used for bribery purposes.

On Friday last, the police service said Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs was not guilty of dereliction of duty for not initiating a probe into allegations of bribery levelled against FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner. The declaration was part of a statement issued by the police service on Friday in response to calls for a police investigation into reports that an alleged sum of US$1 million was distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of- Spain, and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country.

As part of its response to those calls, the police said it would write FIFA to find out whether it had information which it could use to begin any investigation or investigations as to whether any alleged criminal activity took place in this country.

Last Friday in its statement, which was issued by its public affairs unit, the police service said: “Please be informed that there is no dereliction of duty by the Commissioner of Police. The public is hereby advised to date, there has been no official report made by any member of the society, neither has there been any official of the Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) with regards to any alleged criminal conduct offered within Trinidad and Tobago by any named individual, or individuals into any alleged criminal conduct based on reports carried by the media. In these circumstances it is impracticable to commence any criminal investigation into any alleged criminal conduct, based on reports carried by the media.”

The police statement further revealed, “With respect to the alleged US$1 million, the Comptroller of Customs has jurisdiction over this matter as the Exchange Control (Import and Export) Order and the Exchange Control Act provides Customs with the authority.”

Up to yesterday the Customs and Excise had not initiated any probe on this matter.

Works and Transport Minister Jack Warner was suspended last month as FIFA vice-president by FIFA’s ethics committee after bribery allegations were levelled against him in relation to that meeting with CFU officials in Port-of-Spain. Asia Football Confederation president Mohammed bin Hamman, who also attended that meeting, was suspended on the same grounds as Warner.

However the police said, “it is our intention to write to FIFA requesting information which they may have in their possession which may afford us the opportunity of commencing any investigation/s into any alleged criminal

This was the police service’s response to calls that it investigate reports that allege that US$1 million were distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of- Spain and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said police officers have an obligation to investigate a crime if they have “reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been, is being or may have been committed.” Rowley made this observation yesterday, 24 hours after he gave upon Commissioner of Police (CoP) Dwayne Gibbs five days to review and reverse his decision that the police will not investigate information which alleges that five days to review and reverse his decision that the police will not investigate information which alleges that US$1 million were distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of-Spain and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country. Rowley said if this does not happen, the Opposition will refer the matter to the Police Service Commission.

In a statement issued yesterday by the Opposition Leader’s Office, Rowley said: “Under our Police Service Act, the first duty of a police officer is to preserve the peace and detect crime and other breaches of the law. In short, therefore at common law and under statute, the police are under a duty to the public to investigate crimes.”

Rowley explained that this duty is one in which officers necessarily have a discretion as to how much resources to devote to any particular investigation and whether to investigate it at all. Noting that this was supported by the Privy Council case of R v CoP of the Metropolis Ex p Blackburn (1968) 2 QB 118, Rowley said police officers can decide not to not to investigate or “expend resources on an investigation” if they determine that the information received is unreliable, frivolous or tenuous.

“However once an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been, is being or may be committed, then certainly the obligation to the public to investigate arises. Failure to investigate in such a case must be for good reason and it is difficult to see what such good reason would be,” Rowley declared. He added that the decision of the police not to investigate, “must be exercised transparently, in good faith and must rational having regard to all the circumstances.”

Rowley maintained that the police’s position not to investigate this matter appears to be unjustified, given the sustained plethora of news reports in the international, regional and local media about an alleged incident of bribery which took place on the shores of TT, supported by eye witness accounts, digital photos of bundles of money and a FIFA ethics committee report that there is a case to answer.

Rowley said there could be possible breaches of Section Four of the Prevention of Corruption Act which deals with bribery of agents in the private sector; the Exchange Control Act and the Customs Act. Stating that whether or not there is sufficient evidence obtained in the course of an investigation in this matter to charge anyone was another question and not the question being dealt with here, Rowley said: ‘The question is, are the police under an obligation to investigate a case such as this.”

“The suggestion that a lack of official report or complaint means that the police cannot investigate is so ludicrous that it is bordering on dereliction of duty,” Rowley stated. He added that the police have started investigations based on media reports and the Opposition has made “a formal citizen complaint in writing.”

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

TT Police writes to Fifa
Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday
By Nalinee Seelal
Tuesday, June 14 2011


Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs yesterday kept good on his promise and wrote to FIFA to solicit information regarding allegations that undeclared sums of monies, namely US currency, entered Trinidad and Tobago sometime in May.

The letter was written early yesterday on behalf of the Commissioner, and was expected to be sent to FIFA by mid-afternoon.

The letter was written to FIFA following a call by Leader of the Opposition, Dr Keith Rowley, for the police to probe allegations that large sums of US monies came into this country to be used for bribery purposes.

On Friday last, the police service said Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs was not guilty of dereliction of duty for not initiating a probe into allegations of bribery levelled against FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner. The declaration was part of a statement issued by the police service on Friday in response to calls for a police investigation into reports that an alleged sum of US$1 million was distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of- Spain, and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country.

As part of its response to those calls, the police said it would write FIFA to find out whether it had information which it could use to begin any investigation or investigations as to whether any alleged criminal activity took place in this country.

Last Friday in its statement, which was issued by its public affairs unit, the police service said: “Please be informed that there is no dereliction of duty by the Commissioner of Police. The public is hereby advised to date, there has been no official report made by any member of the society, neither has there been any official of the Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) with regards to any alleged criminal conduct offered within Trinidad and Tobago by any named individual, or individuals into any alleged criminal conduct based on reports carried by the media. In these circumstances it is impracticable to commence any criminal investigation into any alleged criminal conduct, based on reports carried by the media.”

The police statement further revealed, “With respect to the alleged US$1 million, the Comptroller of Customs has jurisdiction over this matter as the Exchange Control (Import and Export) Order and the Exchange Control Act provides Customs with the authority.”

Up to yesterday the Customs and Excise had not initiated any probe on this matter.

Works and Transport Minister Jack Warner was suspended last month as FIFA vice-president by FIFA’s ethics committee after bribery allegations were levelled against him in relation to that meeting with CFU officials in Port-of-Spain. Asia Football Confederation president Mohammed bin Hamman, who also attended that meeting, was suspended on the same grounds as Warner.

However the police said, “it is our intention to write to FIFA requesting information which they may have in their possession which may afford us the opportunity of commencing any investigation/s into any alleged criminal

This was the police service’s response to calls that it investigate reports that allege that US$1 million were distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of- Spain and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley said police officers have an obligation to investigate a crime if they have “reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been, is being or may have been committed.” Rowley made this observation yesterday, 24 hours after he gave upon Commissioner of Police (CoP) Dwayne Gibbs five days to review and reverse his decision that the police will not investigate information which alleges that five days to review and reverse his decision that the police will not investigate information which alleges that US$1 million were distributed to participants at a Caribbean Football Union (CFU) meeting in Port-of-Spain and these monies may have been improperly imported into the country. Rowley said if this does not happen, the Opposition will refer the matter to the Police Service Commission.

In a statement issued yesterday by the Opposition Leader’s Office, Rowley said: “Under our Police Service Act, the first duty of a police officer is to preserve the peace and detect crime and other breaches of the law. In short, therefore at common law and under statute, the police are under a duty to the public to investigate crimes.”

Rowley explained that this duty is one in which officers necessarily have a discretion as to how much resources to devote to any particular investigation and whether to investigate it at all. Noting that this was supported by the Privy Council case of R v CoP of the Metropolis Ex p Blackburn (1968) 2 QB 118, Rowley said police officers can decide not to not to investigate or “expend resources on an investigation” if they determine that the information received is unreliable, frivolous or tenuous.

“However once an officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a crime has been, is being or may be committed, then certainly the obligation to the public to investigate arises. Failure to investigate in such a case must be for good reason and it is difficult to see what such good reason would be,” Rowley declared. He added that the decision of the police not to investigate, “must be exercised transparently, in good faith and must rational having regard to all the circumstances.”

Rowley maintained that the police’s position not to investigate this matter appears to be unjustified, given the sustained plethora of news reports in the international, regional and local media about an alleged incident of bribery which took place on the shores of TT, supported by eye witness accounts, digital photos of bundles of money and a FIFA ethics committee report that there is a case to answer.

Rowley said there could be possible breaches of Section Four of the Prevention of Corruption Act which deals with bribery of agents in the private sector; the Exchange Control Act and the Customs Act. Stating that whether or not there is sufficient evidence obtained in the course of an investigation in this matter to charge anyone was another question and not the question being dealt with here, Rowley said: ‘The question is, are the police under an obligation to investigate a case such as this.”

“The suggestion that a lack of official report or complaint means that the police cannot investigate is so ludicrous that it is bordering on dereliction of duty,” Rowley stated. He added that the police have started investigations based on media reports and the Opposition has made “a formal citizen complaint in writing.”

Gibbs is ah smart fella.

[Jah Gol]

Rowley said there could be possible breaches of Section Four of the Prevention of Corruption Act which deals with bribery of agents in the private sector; the Exchange Control Act and the Customs Act. Stating that whether or not there is sufficient evidence obtained in the course of an investigation in this matter to charge anyone was another question and not the question being dealt with here, Rowley said: ‘The question is, are the police under an obligation to investigate a case such as this.”

This is reasonable I think.

[elan]

the two ah alyuh still with this back and forth?? is a week now man lol

If again! is better they have a live debate or a town hall meeting

FS go lose doh, because he arguing morals and emotions not facts.  Up to now I still want to know what potential proof is available that JW broke any laws?  So far nothing but smoke and mirrors in an attempt to get people like FS hot and bothered enough to call for investigations because of the animous they hold for de teflon stutterah!

FK, firstly I am 100% sure about certain facts, but I think Bakes, myself and everyone on this forum were becoming bored with the whole debate.

Secondly, I come from a country where any sniff of scandal and wrongdoing is pounced on, investigated and published. Usually, a politician would have been politely asked to resign immediately the media grab hold of such a story. Now this may not always be fair, but the voting public have a right to know if their M.P.s are involved in dubious activities. All I have said is that this whole scenario looks suspicious. If there is a reasonable explanation, then this should be offered. Mr Warner has not offered a reasonable explanation. Not one word has been mentioned about the source of the US$1 million. Nor the missing US$100,000 (difference between the amount bin Hammam says he sent and the amount Warner says he received). Now I'm damn sure that any organisation in the world would simply issue a press release to clear things up. But CFU can't do this because they would then be admitting that money was offered. So people are making sworn affidavits concerning cash that CFU can't admit exists. If, as some officials have stated, this was a CFU grant, why doesn't the CFU come out and explain this? So it leads you to speculate and assume (always a dangerous activity) that there was money changing hands but this can't be admitted because it may appear to be bribery, the money may be from an undeclared source and the money could also have been taken out of T&T without declaration.
I don't care if it was Jack, Camps or the doubles seller in St James, someone either has to categorically deny this speculation or it should be investigated. Just saying it didn't happen is not sufficient.

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

[Bakes]

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

Certain groups of items like what, phosphate-rich fertilizer and blasting caps?  Please don't conflate the discussion with anti-terrorism measures.


----------------------------------------------


Ribbit thanks fuh yuh input... but try yuh best and ketch up nah.

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

Certain groups of items like what, phosphate-rich fertilizer and blasting caps?  Please don't conflate the discussion with anti-terrorism measures.


----------------------------------------------


Ribbit thanks fuh yuh input... but try yuh best and ketch up nah.

Why you even studyin elan.  WDF one ha to do wit de nexx.

[elan]

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

Certain groups of items like what, phosphate-rich fertilizer and blasting caps?  Please don't conflate the discussion with anti-terrorism measures.


----------------------------------------------


Ribbit thanks fuh yuh input... but try yuh best and ketch up nah.

Why you even studyin elan.  WDF one ha to do wit de nexx.

Must can't study me. Two of alyuh only focus on the most sensational part and ignore the more rational part of what I wrote. Slowly now, what I'm getting at is that things are not as they seem and therefore, it will behoove the government to actively monitor monies coming in and going out the country randomly. Especially in light of the crime situation in T&T, which can be tied in to the movement of money locally and internationally. But you can limit the scope of the discussion.

[fitzinho]

here we go round the Mulberry bush...

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

Certain groups of items like what, phosphate-rich fertilizer and blasting caps?  Please don't conflate the discussion with anti-terrorism measures.


----------------------------------------------


Ribbit thanks fuh yuh input... but try yuh best and ketch up nah.

Why you even studyin elan.  WDF one ha to do wit de nexx.

Must can't study me. Two of alyuh only focus on the most sensational part and ignore the more rational part of what I wrote. Slowly now, what I'm getting at is that things are not as they seem and therefore, it will behoove the government to actively monitor monies coming in and going out the country randomly. Especially in light of the crime situation in T&T, which can be tied in to the movement of money locally and internationally. But you can limit the scope of the discussion.

Dude both me and BnS argument was law oriented.  My friend as an example is a broker moving hundreds of Ks sometimes, you think the standard by which his account is scrutinized is the same as a regular joe who see's less than 5/6 K in their account per month?  Same with JW, all this talk about the amounts and reporting doesn't have the same value when dealing with someone who is a millionaire and moves lots of money.  Unless JW has been tied to criminal activity the government has no basis to minitor his financial dealings.   Like I've said before some of you are letting your animous for JW cloud allyuh objectivity.  Then again some of you don't work in law related fields and will not appreciate arguments based on the merits of such.

[elan]

Doh worry about them nah. In the states you cyah even buy a certain group of items together without setting off alarm bells, much less for a middle easterner wiring you millions of dollars just so.

Certain groups of items like what, phosphate-rich fertilizer and blasting caps?  Please don't conflate the discussion with anti-terrorism measures.


----------------------------------------------


Ribbit thanks fuh yuh input... but try yuh best and ketch up nah.

Why you even studyin elan.  WDF one ha to do wit de nexx.

Must can't study me. Two of alyuh only focus on the most sensational part and ignore the more rational part of what I wrote. Slowly now, what I'm getting at is that things are not as they seem and therefore, it will behoove the government to actively monitor monies coming in and going out the country randomly. Especially in light of the crime situation in T&T, which can be tied in to the movement of money locally and internationally. But you can limit the scope of the discussion.

Dude both me and BnS argument was law oriented.  My friend as an example is a broker moving hundreds of Ks sometimes, you think the standard by which his account is scrutinized is the same as a regular joe who see's less than 5/6 K in their account per month?  Same with JW, all this talk about the amounts and reporting doesn't have the same value when dealing with someone who is a millionaire and moves lots of money.  Unless JW has been tied to criminal activity the government has no basis to minitor his financial dealings.   Like I've said before some of you are letting your animous for JW cloud allyuh objectivity.  Then again some of you don't work in law related fields and will not appreciate arguments based on the merits of such.

Dude was suspended by an international organization, pending the outcome of an investigation of bribery/attempted bribery in Trinidad and Tobago? Is that not a case to investigate locally? You dismissed FS dead man on the side of the street, let me give you one. Your neighbors (husband and wife) next door is arguing, then you hear something LIKE a gunshot and then all goes quiet. You call the police and tell them about your suspicions, what is the next move from the police?

[FF]

Dude both me and BnS argument was law oriented.  My friend as an example is a broker moving hundreds of Ks sometimes, you think the standard by which his account is scrutinized is the same as a regular joe who see's less than 5/6 K in their account per month?  Same with JW, all this talk about the amounts and reporting doesn't have the same value when dealing with someone who is a millionaire and moves lots of money.  Unless JW has been tied to criminal activity the government has no basis to minitor his financial dealings.   Like I've said before some of you are letting your animous for JW cloud allyuh objectivity.  Then again some of you don't work in law related fields and will not appreciate arguments based on the merits of such.

Well certain Central Banks do highly regulate and restrict currency movements in and out of the country.
India, China and South Africa come to mind. You just cannot simply send dollars in or move local currency out etc, unless you can prove the legitimacy of its use such as paying invoices or some such. You would pay a large withholding tax or face some other penalty otherwise.

However as far as I know Trinidad and Tobago is no such country and the USD is definitely not restricted in TnT.

I cannot comment on T&T tax laws or criminal laws.

[100% Barataria]

wonder if dis thread will surpass de current record

[just cool]

All who likin what going on wid this jack warner controversy have tuh also examine the possible out come, not just for T&T football but the rest of the CFU nations. most members may rejoice over jack's possible ousting as CNCF, CFU and FIFA vice pres, but never stopped to think for a minute of how it may affect us.

some may think that getting rid of jack may spell the end of our football woes and the beginning of brighter days, which may not be necessarily so. from what i recently saw of trinidad football and the society on a whole, jack may not be the worst case scenario, sad but true.

IMO there are bigger badder wolves waiting to devour T&T football from the inside out like a parasite.

as for the bribery accusations, who's to say that if jack was found guilty as charged, blatter, just to flex his muscles may not turn around and ban all of the federations involved to set an example ? (and i must say, we (CFU nations) would make excellent scape goats), it's not like the footballing world would miss us any ways....

i suppose ppl may want to rethink the outcome since it's better to stick wid the devil you know. JMHO.

[Brownsugar]

Aye, aye....look Just Cool....come back just so, just so....how yuh been boss??