PR scammers await fate as court probes false submissions

| 08/04/2016 | 7 Comments
Cayman News Service

Courthouse door, Grand Cayman

(CNS): Two women convicted of a permanent residency scam had their sentencing adjourned for the third time Thursday because of a false submission by one of the women. Justice Charles Quin was scheduled to deliver his decision on how much time Marcia Hamilton and Judith Douglas should serve for their part in the con, in which they purported to be selling residency rights for $2,500 on behalf of the government to help plug the public deficit. But while Douglas confessed to her part in the crime, Hamilton has denied guilt and appears to have continued lying to authorities since her conviction in December, causing a delay in the judge’s ruling.

Justice Quin indicated that Hamilton had made conflicting submissions to the probation service and the courts via her attorney regarding her income following her conviction and February sentencing hearing. Late submissions had been made to the court in an attempt to explain the discrepancies but the judge said he was not able to deliver his sentencing decision. Apologising to Douglas, who he said had been cooperative throughout, in contrast to Hamilton, Justice Quin explained that the defendants were linked in the case and he could not reveal his sentencing decision for either woman until all the issues were addressed.

In submissions to the authorities relating to the compensation the women would pay to atone for their financial crimes, Hamilton had initially sought to minimise her income to avoid paying compensation, then later inflated it to offer more compensation to avoid jail time. The judge had then ordered an enquiry to examine the conflict.

After Hamilton made further submissions this week in an affidavit to the court to justify the conflicting information, the judge said he had to allow the crown time to consider the implications of her new position before he could set the terms of the compensation orders and then the appropriate jail term.

Both women are currently remanded in custody at Fairbanks women’s prison and are facing time behind bars but how long remains in question. Guy Dillaway Perry, the defence attorney representing Douglas, expressed his concern that his client, who has been cooperative with the authorities and “desperately wanted to know her fate”, was being unfairly prejudiced by the actions of her co-defendant Hamilton, who continues to give false information. He told the court that because Hamilton “can’t get her story straight” his client was suffering, and declared “enough is enough” when requests were made for more time for Hamilton to submit more information.

The court agreed that the adjournment would be as short as possible and the judge urged the lawyers involved to organise the earliest possible date for the case to be reheard and sentences delivered.

Scammer took $20k in PR con

PR scammer convicted by judge

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Category: Courts, Crime

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonymous says:

    I can’t believe people have written comments about the victims?? Are you serious. These two women STOLE money by deceit and should be sentenced accordingly. I have very little sympathy for a thieves.

  2. person of interest says:

    Marcia and Judith my heart goes out to you both but, you do the crime so serve
    the time.
    Marcia’s favorite word “SIMPLY”

  3. Anonymous says:

    Justice Quin should give Hamilton an additional 2 years for wasting the court time and she should also be prosecuted by the crown for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    Dutty Gal !!

  4. Anonymous says:

    Compensation? The people trying to get PR were doing so illegally. They should be in court too!

    • Anonymous says:

      Exactly! And then they should ALL be deported. They attempted to participate in corruption. What kind of standards are out legal systems attempting to reflect here? I want to know who all these foreign nationals are that thought $2,500 to a fellow foreigner could buy them permanence in my country.

  5. Sharkey says:

    I didn’t know that after a person is convicted , that he or she could be retried for the same crime . Is that what the new hearing would be ? A new trial .

    • Anonymous says:

      Its like the trial is in two phases. One for guilt or innocence. If guilty there’s a second phase to decide the penalty. The ‘new’ hearing is to decide the penalty. (Its not that straightforward but its also not a new trial.)

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.