PR scam appeal over absence of Bush rejected

| 19/04/2018 | 27 Comments
Paul Hume Ebanks

Paul Hume Ebanks

(CNS): Paul Hume Ebanks, who is serving a 14-year prison term for his conviction on over two dozen counts relating to a Cayman Islands permanent residency and status scam, had his appeal rejected by the higher court Thursday. Ebanks was convicted for over two dozen charges of conning people out of cash in the scam. His appeal was based largely on the fact that McKeeva Bush never appeared at his trial, but that ground and others were rejected outright by the three appeal court judges, who described them as being “wholly without merit”.

The panel also upheld the sentence that Ebanks is serving and agreed with the findings of the trial judge and the aggravating factors in the case, including Ebanks’ repeat offending and the seriousness of the offences for which he was convicted.

In his appeal Ebanks had claimed that he had wanted Bush to appear at his trial to give evidence because the former premier was at the heart of his defence.

At trial Ebanks had argued that he was working on behalf of Bush, who was the premier for some of the time that Ebanks was conning people out of their cash in exchange for the promise of PR.

He had told his victims that the scheme to get residency was not unlike the situation in 2003 when the Cabinet had awarded thousands of status grants to individuals following directions from the UK to address the issue of foreign workers living in Cayman for years without any rights. But there was no official scheme, and Ebanks claimed that he, too, had been conned by Bush into collecting the names and cash and that he was the scapegoat.

During the trial, when the allegations arose that Ebanks was working on behalf of Bush, the crown had sought to call the former premier but he had refused to give evidence in the case. As a result, prosecutors made a formal application to order Bush to attend, but that application was opposed by Ebanks’ attorney and was refused by the judge, who accepted the argument that Bush’s presence was not necessary for the jury to rule on Ebanks case.

In his appeal Ebanks claimed that his lawyer was acting against his instructions and that all along he had wanted Bush to be called.

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal rejected Ebanks’ claim and pointed out that if Bush had given evidence, it would have been prejudicial to Ebanks and would not have helped his case in any way — a reason why his attorney had advised against it.

The appeal court also rejected Ebanks’ claim that his conviction was unsafe because some of the evidence of witnesses caught up in his scheme had been read in because they were unable to attend the trial. While the appeal court said that the trial judge could probably have given a clearer warning to the jury about how to treat that evidence because it had not been tested, they did not believe it made the conviction unsafe.

Tags: , , ,

Category: Courts, Crime

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    This psycho took me for around $300 many years ago (I don’t recall if I gave him the full $300 or if I only gave him half). He claimed that his son had been hospitalized following an accident in Florida, and that he needed to go see him…and of course, he would pay me back, as soon as he got back. I was a bit suspicious, but questioned who would use his son’s name to do something like this. Apparently, (a) this psycho would. When I came to realize that I had been ripped off, I didn’t chase him down. It wasn’t worth the trouble. Ultimately, I figured he would rip off the wrong person and get his due. I’m not sure if that ever happened, but he did get a lot of jail time. If the Cayman Islands were smart, they would strip him of his status and ship him out, once he is done serving his time. There is no redemption in him, and he will continue to do, as he has done until now. He knows no other way.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Psycho needs to be tarred and feathered.

  3. BELONGER says:

    Crooked as a dog hind leg from 80’s when he was attending high school. For multiple offences on multiple occasions, he should be deported back to Jam Rock after serving his present sentence in Northward.

  4. Bleeding scapegoats says:

    Sunday lunch at the prison Scapegoat curry

  5. Wooster the Rooster says:

    This appeal had the same odds of succeeding as Alden building a rocket to land McKeeva as the first Caymanian on the moon.
    This scumbag has no money so why are these appeals that are “wholly without merit” allowed to proceed at the expense of the taxpayer. Who authorised this total waste of money?.

  6. Anonymous says:


  7. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, explain to me again how Rob Aspinall gets three and a half years for scamming three times as much money also with aggravating factors?

    Oh that’s right, Aspinall, who was caught red handed, “cooperated”.

    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      But the fact is that yes he did co-operate. He pled guilty straight away (as I recall he didn’t even ask for bail and went straight to jail) , he didn’t waste court time and the tax payers money with a trial let alone an appeal that was wholly without merit. Mr Ebanks did none of those things – he even committed several of the offences which was convicted of whilst on police bail for charges for the others (and was in breach of the electronic tag limitations on his bail 40% of the time he was wearing it). Aspinall stole money from a bankruptcy estate that had long since been written off as irrecoverable, and he repaid all the money and interest as well. Ebanks stole money from poor and desperate people and didn’t refund a bean. Aspinall stole once and it was a first offence, Ebanks conviction involved over 20 separate incidents, and had a further 56 previous convictions including a 6 year sentence for dishonesty, being out on licence before re offending. And Aspinall admitted the offence was entirely down to him, whereas Ebanks accused other people of being involved or conspiring against him. But something makes me suspect you are not really interested in the facts.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m sorry, I call BS

        Aren’t prison sentences first and foremost meant to reflect the gravity of the crime? This guy was a no doubt poorly educated petty criminal compared to Aspinall who was well educated and qualified and indulged in a sophisticated crime.

        If you murder someone and get caught standing over the body with a bloody knife in your hand, should you honestly get a lenient sentence because you “plead guilty right away” and “don’t waste taxpayers’ money” with a trial? You still f$&@ing murdered someone!!

        And the fact is he was able to repay the money he stole because he wasn’t living hand to mouth. Ebanks surely didn’t have a pot to piss in.

        So having lots of money earns you a discount on your sentence? That’s fair.

      • Anonymous says:

        sorry which tax payers would that be? you mean expat money?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Ebanks you say? Deportation order?

    • Caymanite says:

      Jamaican who took step-father surname. So yes deportation order.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just because your name is Ebanks or Bodden does not mean you are Caymanian. Have you not been reading the press?

      • Spokentruth says:

        This is like everyone who’s caught and charged is labelled as a person of GT, EE or WB, etc., regardless if they’re Caymanian or not! Then ppl start thinking that on a whole, ppl of that district are criminals, even if the criminals/arrested are of different a nationality than Caymanian….anyways, yes deport him instead of 10 yrs in HM Nthward Prison fattening him up under such great and free care & attention! But

  9. Anonymous says:

    CNS. Why are you reporting the Cabinet status grants came about in consequence of some direction from the UK? I do not believe there was any such direction and have never seen any evidence of it. The grants started as a means of celebrating the quincentennial with 500 intended to deserving long term residents. The whole scheme was dreamed up by politicians with no UK input. In the end almost 3000 were given including to many persons who were not long term residents.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The U.K. didn’t force the status grants that was ALL Mackeeva Bush

  11. Somebody says says:

    Paul is a notorious liar and a sociopath. He needs to shut up and do the time for his crime. Hopefully, he will change while in prison and know that no amount of money is worth loosing your reputation and freedom over.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Two dozen counts… And how many fools did not even come forward?

    • Anonymous says:

      They got their PR I guess

    • Anonymous says:

      An imported con artist. How many more are out there?

      • Anonymous says:

        If he is indeed imported, why is his status not being revoked and him deported? He has committed multiple offenses made possible or facilitated by the fact that he is Caymanian and so if he was granted status there should be no issue.

      • Anonymous says:

        You wish. And yes there are lots of them out there. Face it already. Its part of your culture.

        • Somebody says says:

          7:47am…yes it’s part of Cayman’s culture because Cayman has more of his kind than bona fide Caymanians and we know how notorious they are when it comes to cheating, stealing, lying and scamming. Thank you. I hope he is deported after he serves his time. He needs to go back to his birth place and do what he did there and we will read about him.


You can comment anonymously. See CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.

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

See draft amendment to the Constitution in the CNS Library