Court seizes $10,000 bond in Screaton case
Arthur Screaton
(CNS): A Grand court judge ordered that a $10,000 surety paid to the court on behalf of Arthur Screaton, who absconded while on bail, won’t be given back. Although the crown has decided not to extradite the 55-year-old former George Town bar manager, who is accused of stealing around the same amount from Rackam’s, the court ruled Friday that the bond would be seized. Screaton, who denied the charges, jumped bail and never returned to Cayman after the court allowed him to travel overseas prior to his trial.
Screaton, a Canadian national who had been in Cayman for over 16 years when he was facing trial, was spotted in a small town in Colorado by a CNS reader last year, but despite knowing exactly where he is, the crown made the decision not to bring him back to face the music. Although Cayman has an extradition treaty with Canada, it is understood that the director of public prosecutions has said that the costs to extradite outweigh the public interest and Screaton has refused to come back on his own volition.
He was accused of stealing $10,850 from Rackam’s and related businesses during 2010. Screaton was represented by attorney John Furniss, who applied for the bond to be returned to the person who had supplied it, as he argued it was the crown’s decision not to bring Screaton back. However, the court refused and ordered that the bond be kept.
$1 billion no wonder he is not coming back.
It can’t go to the “victim” because he has actually NOT been found guilty in a court of law as yet.
Why would the victim be found guilty? Poor Arthur chose to skip bail and his opportunity to clear his name in court five years ago. Consequently, there is an active warrant for his arrest. He should be found guilty in absentia and the victim should be given $10k towards their losses. The warrant for Arthur should remain. None of this should have taken 5 years to figure out.
You’re better off outta here Arthur – its not like it used to be
Shouldn’t this money rightfully go to the aggrieved victim? The court shouldn’t be financially rewarding themselves for having set the bail too low. Five years this has been going on! What a farce, and then they keep the money!
You realize people are innocent until proven guilty correct ? Him leaving the island doesn’t bode well for his innocence but he has not yet been convicted so there would be no reason to pay the companies accusing him.
Hey, I liked Arthur he is a charming fellow, but when money goes missing and there is a failure to answer bail, you’re defacto guilty in absentia. Innocent people show up to clear their name.
Don’t you mean “1 billion” that the government can’t account for?
Nothing on the 500 million that the government can’t account for?