Jury acquits local immigration agent of theft

| 04/07/2018 | 111 Comments

(CNS): The owner of a well-known local immigration business, Paulette Anglin-Lewis (54), was acquitted on Wednesday of two counts of theft, after a jury began deliberating on Tuesday morning. The four women and three men found her not guilty of stealing more than $55,000 from one of her clients after her attorney successfully argued that she may have been terrible at running a business but she was not dishonest. As Alex Davis presented a summary of Anglin-Lewis’ defence to the jury, he said that his client may have been “negligent or stupid” but she did not intend to steal her client’s cash.

The crown’s case had been that Anglin-Lewis took two payments of $27,750 from her client, James Rawcliffe, in 2013 and 2014 for his permanent residency fees for those years, just as she had in previous years, but failed to pay immigration.

While Anglin-Lewis had claimed it was an administrative error that led to the major blunder, prosecutor Toyin Salako had presented evidence that Anglin-Lewis had deliberately misled her client, lied about the circumstances that led to the failure to pay the fees and had ultimately used the money to keep her ailing business afloat.

But Anglin-Lewis, who opened the business in 2006, denied stealing the cash, which she paid back to her client sometime later with legal fees and interest on top. She did, however, admit a catalog of mistakes and errors in the management of cash that led to the failure to pay the fees. Then came a financial crisis, when she realised that a debt had accumulated with immigration that she was responsible for.

Davis described the customer service at the business as “terrible” and Anglin-Lewis as a “fundamentally flawed business woman”, adding that her business model was “an accident waiting to happen”. However, he said that the failure to pay Rawcliffe’s fees was an “honest mistake” that spiralled into an overwhelming situation when the business, Anglin-Lewis & Associates, got into financial trouble.

Clearly relieved at the jury’s verdict after the week-long trial, Anglin-Lewis, a former immigration officer, walked free from the court. Nevertheless, it was apparent from the submissions made by her attorney that although her immigration business is still operating, Anglin-Lewis remains in financial difficulties. The court heard she had prioritised her debt to Rawcliffe above her mortgage and now, like many people in the Cayman Islands, faces the prospect of losing her home.

Tags: ,

Category: Courts, Crime

Comments (111)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Re:
    “Racist, moi? Hardly dear chap. I will put this in small words and big letters so you can understand. The places (countries, sorry, was that word too large?) you mention are BIG places with 80, 65 and 320 million people living in them respectively. That is many people to choose from. Here you have 32,000 all of whom are related, indebted, in love or in a feud with one another. Worse than that, as you ably demonstrate, quite a few understand f*** all about anything except the incestuous pool they have been raised in.”

    Naaaah, you’re not racist, prejudiced, or biased in the least!

    Lol! You and your supporters believe in the above yet insist on Cayman expanding our jury pool to the likes of you and your kind?

    Talk about an entitlement crisis. Not only do you feel superior to Caymanians, you also crave the power to judge them via your standpoint.

    Kindly take some time this weekend to reevaluate your life decisions and convictions.
    Maybe call your mother and ask her what went wrong?
    You were not raised right, and most likely, it is the fault of your micro and macro environment(s).

    – Who

  2. Anonymous says:

    Reading these heated comments and wondering if no one has taken the time to remember the glaringly obvious “paper trail” and inevitable CIG discovery – in the event of an actual attempt of theft.

    Not exactly a clean getaway, is it.

    – Who

    As you all were tho …
    (smh)

    3
    12
    • Jotnar says:

      By that standard Bernie Madoff would be a free man.

      The inevitability of discovery and the amount of evidence is not a determinant of whether a criminal offence has been committed, and it is a common feature in frauds both that the outcome was inevitable and that the perpetrator claimed that they intended to pay the monies back – usually through some hoped for improvement in business. Doesn’t stop it being simply wrong to use monies given to you in trust for your own or your businesses purposes.

      10
      • Anonymous says:

        Ummm…a pie-in-the-sky, pyramid-scheme, too-good-to-believe investment fund is MILES away from work permit fees payable to the Cayman Islands government.

        However, feel free to peddle that comparison and believe you’re making a solid point.

        – Who

        3
        6
      • Anonymous says:

        Did the jury hear that the person who gave her the money, tried to contact her over and over again and she never got back to him. Only when she was arrested did she pay it back…don’t see how that is not theft. Paulette knew what she was doing and tried to blame everyone else. If she didn’t know she was missing 50,000.00 how can anyone trust her with their permits, etc. I know I wouldn’t….

      • Legal Eagle says:

        Then she was charged with the wrong offence to obtain a conviction but fraudster would have been too strong a stigma to apply to this woman when the facts are considered, including the desperate efforts she made to obtain funds to rescue the situation. The final element of the crime of theft is the intention to deprive permanently, as I am sure you well know. If that element is absent on the facts, the jury are free to acquit.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Jee summmm . There is a lot of racist comments here, I must say chaps. Them , Us etc. please . There simply not enough space at either prison for “White” colour crimes. LOL . you all not reading the press awah. Lets all take a chill pill . There is a lot of this kind of thing going on all around us. Boy I am having a time here. anyways she got off better luck next time.

    3
    12
  4. No state citizen says:

    The scoop/claim from someone supposedly in the know is:

    1. Monies taken from customers are deposited to the business account.
    2. Monies paid out for customers are also paid from same business account.
    3. She has an overdraft facility so seeing the account in overdraft was not a red flag.
    4. Her claim was that she was off sick so she was not aware that the first payment for the person had not been paid.
    5. The second year when she sent over his payment, Immigration refused the payment because the first payment was in arrears for over a year.
    6. According to her this was the first time she became aware that the first payment had not been made to Immigration.
    7. She then realised that she was in trouble because the overdraft facility she had and the current balance would not cover both payments.
    8. She tried to negotiate with Immigration for time to pay, she was given time but she still could not come up with the funds by the deadline.

    So according to her, she did not deceptively take or steal the man’s funds.

    When she found out about the missed payment, dhe desperately tried to get the funds but nothing worked out.

    Apparently the jury agreed with that version of events.

    From the posts here, seems like most of your don’t.

    I don’t know the woman so objectively if that was the evidence presented, I can see why they acquitted her.

    9
    21
    • Anonymous says:

      If you are so incompetent in running a business that you don’t know how much cash you have in that business, and that third party payments (money not belonging to you but which you are responsible for) is being used for other purposes than intended, then you are still a criminal, regardless of circumstances. CIMA should regulate any party dealing with third party cash.

      29
      1
    • Anonymous says:

      Only in the private sector!!

      12
      1
    • Anon. says:

      Your “someone in the know” dont know squat!
      If that is your logic then most of those caught stealing should be found not guilty.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Free Aspinall! He paid it back too…

    36
    7
  6. Lord Elderberry Bobo Fontleroy Toot-Toot Smythe The Thirdteenth says:

    I think basic morals and law (looking at various countries) should be taught in Cayman’s schools. And cookery.

    30
    3
    • Anonymous says:

      Book cookery? Seems pretty rampant already.

      16
    • Anonymous says:

      When you people going stop being lazy and stupid???? Moralistic teaching should be done primarily in the home. Schools jobs is to reinforce moralistic teaching not to be the primary deliverer of it.

      13
      1
      • I’ve had it with ona people says:

        Who are you people ? Are you referring to those who you cross on the streets every day, do you know who they are, do you know what they all do; where they live how much money they have, whether they are employed or not, whether they have a house or nor whether it’s bigger than yours or their vehicle is a later model than yours.

        Really you don’t know all of us, you don’t know all,of our woes. Tribulations and in many cases large success. How in the world can you then categories us as “you people”. Is it possible that we people are on to your racist sentiments. Take warning judge not that he be not judged with detrimental consequences.

        1
        1
      • Anonymous says:

        Please elaborate what “you people” mean, and sign your name below. Racist!

  7. Anonymous says:

    do juries in other countries allow non citizens to sit on the jury ? IDK but common sense says no .

    10
    9
  8. Anonymous says:

    There have been a number of recent trials where the thief has paid the money back and the dumb jury have acquitted. This now clearly sets the precedent in Cayman that it is ok to steal so long as when found out you pay it back.
    So in that case Mr. Commissioner of the RCIPS can you stop wasting any police time in investigating these types of offences and concentrate on offences that are deemed more important.
    And Mr. AG can you scrap the useless jury system and have Judge alone trials, at least someone with a brain cell will decide guilty or not guilty on the facts and law.

    46
    3
  9. Anonymous says:

    Maybe the prosecution needs a better lawyer

    25
    8
    • Jotnar says:

      Not sure it could have been made plainer. Doesn’t matter how good the prosecution case if the jury is unwilling to convict.

      15
  10. Anonymous says:

    The ultimate in vanity
    Exploiting their supremacy
    I can’t believe the things you say
    I can’t believe, I can’t believe the price you pay
    Nothing can save you
    Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone

    25
    2
  11. Anonymous says:

    Was she not charged under 251 of the Penal Code?

    24
  12. Anonymous says:

    She just wasn’t able to dance fast enough to get caught up. That’s all. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    6
    12
  13. Anonymous says:

    cayman justice is no justice.

    47
    3
  14. Anonymous says:

    Couple of caveats: first I’m not a lawyer, second I did not attend the trial and so didn’t see all the evidence. Having said that, I’ve spent 25 years in the financial industry and its always been made clear to me (by laywers, compliance, anyone with half a brain): if you hold money on behalf of a client and spend that money on yourself (or anyone other than the client) it is theft.

    Did the judge give the jury instructions? If he/she did it seems they did an incompetent job of it.

    95
    4
    • Anonymous says:

      Sounds like you did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night though.

      23
      13
    • Anonymous says:

      The legal definition of theft is misappropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. That is the definition. That is what needed to be proven. I don’t agree she should have been acquitted and it is scary she ran a business for so long.

  15. Anonymous says:

    A classic example here of why the jury pool should be mixed with expats. A very well known Caymanian was acquitted by her jury of the same nationality. I don’t think she intended for it to get out of hand but this is clearly theft. Caymanians don’t convict their own. If you’re Jamaican, they convict you for screwing their wives, if you’re Honduran, they convict you for screwing their husbands and if you’re Filipino, they convict you for working for peanuts. Other nationalities are found guilty by association. Caymanians are so anti-expat when the islands are dependents of a whole other country lmao.

    60
    32
    • Anonymous says:

      Oh please. When the British expat stole money from the Pines and absconded no charges were brought and there was no request for extradition from the UK. Because her husband paid the money back. But the Caymanian (who also paid the money back) is prosecuted but acquitted and all of a sudden this becomes a story about how Caymanians (as opposed to expats) get away with crime. Smdh.

      48
      23
      • Anonymous says:

        The difference between these two thieves is simple. Had the British lady been tried, she’d be convicted by the jury of Caymanians.

        4
        1
        • Anonymous says:

          You are missing the point. Probably deliberately. The prosecuting authorities who took the decision to charge and prosecute this lady took the decision not to charge and prosecute the other. If we are going to discuss failings and possible bias in our justice system and let’s discuss all of it and not just pray in aid a jury verdict to bolster your racist rant. And you have no idea whether whether the British lady would have been convicted. That again is racist speculation on your part. Stop the hypocritical virtue-signaling.

        • Anonymous says:

          I see, and that justifies the authorities in not charging her and seeking her extradition? Because the outcome was predetermined – a Caymanian jury would have convicted her of a crime of which she was, on the facts that have been made available, guilty? So you have a problem with your own kind being convicted too it seems.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jury has to be of your peers…There are Paper Caymanians and born Caymanians..still Caymanians…Why do we need expats??

      28
      8
      • Anonymous says:

        The answer to that is pretty bloody obvious

        22
        6
        • Anonymous says:

          you racist pig. So in germany, london, USA etc get expats in their jury pool? Go fly a kite. The jury of her peers has spoken.

          7
          16
          • Anonymous says:

            Racist, moi? Hardly dear chap. I will put this in small words and big letters so you can understand. The places (countries, sorry, was that word too large?) you mention are BIG places with 80, 65 and 320 million people living in them respectively. That is many people to choose from. Here you have 32,000 all of whom are related, indebted, in love or in a feud with one another. Worse than that, as you ably demonstrate, quite a few understand f*** all about anything except the incestuous pool they have been raised in.

            14
            5
          • Say it like it is says:

            1.33pm I won’t call you a racist pig as I do not wish to descend to your abysmal level of ignorance. In many parts of Britain juries are comprised 100% of what you call “paper Caymanians”, but who in Britain are classified and treated as full British citizens.

            6
            2
            • Anonymous says:

              But descend you did,,,

            • Anonymous says:

              Yes and most of those immigrants are humble, simple people who are grateful for their better life and will follow the grand English judge’s directions so the ‘real English people’ don’t have a problem with black and brown people on ‘their’ juries. Not so in Cayman. Put expats on juries here and you would get convictions on the basis of being Caymanian alone, based on the vile racist filth spewed by so many anonymously on here who are otherwise all smiley and polite in the office. Give me a f****** break.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh…. don’t you expats wish you could just lock up all Caymanians and take over. Your comment speaks magnitudes of your hatred to the locals. When ever an expat in whatever country you came from, can sit as a juror to convict your people, please let me know.

      Expats talk about this sense of entitlement that Caymanians have, which granted, a few do and they feel they are entitled to work. On the other hand, you have expats like you that feel that you should have a right to everything on this island just like the Caymanians, to even go as far as suggesting expats sitting as jurors to lock up Caymanians. The day the entitled feeling expats get their way is the day we are doomed.

      26
      25
      • Anonymous says:

        When you look at the size of this lil dot in the Caribbean sea, and our small population (when counting actual Caymanians, not WP/PR holders) you can see some validity in having expat jurors. Cayman is small and everybody knows somebody who knows someone. You think it is just coincidence so many are getting trials by jury? #staywokefool

        19
        7
    • Jah Dread says:

      My my what a keen observer you is. Look like ya na like de place e’.

      1
      1
  16. Anonymous says:

    Cayman juries.

    43
    4
  17. Anonymous says:

    Lesson here is to do what I do with my immigration services agency, I send them a check for the WP fees made out to CI Govt that they take to pay the annual fees. I pay for their invoice for services separately.

    45
  18. Cess Pita says:

    Lessons learned – 1. What can happen when a Caymanian runs a business even when she has her connections with the Immigration Dept. 2. What can happen with a Caymanian jury deciding the case of a born Caymanian, as opposed to a trial by judge alone.

    69
    12
  19. Anonymous says:

    Caymanians don’t go to jail for robbing expats.

    84
    28
  20. Anonymous says:

    When I run out of cash I simply rob… ahem..borrow… from Peter and stop paying Paul.

    My business account is my personal ATM. Life is good.

    64
    4
  21. Anonymous says:

    She clearly doesn’t need to be running a business. I hope this brings to light her inability to do so and people learn to avoid her.

    61
    2
    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed! With such scathing reviews of her skills, by HER attorney, she should be shutting that business down immediately.

      29
      • Anonymous says:

        This case raises some interesting questions about our company laws. In the UK it’s illegal to continue to trade a business knowing that it is insolvent and cannot meet it’s commitments – it’s called ‘Wrongful Trading’. So how the heck is Anglin-Lewis & Associates still in business? There’s also another consideration here. In order to pay this money back she showed what’s known in UK law as ‘unfair preference’ so to be perfectly blunt if her home is being repo’d that’s tough. It all stinks of a complete lack of proper company regulation in these islands.

        19
  22. Anonymous says:

    Honest mistake! My A$$…

    90
    2
  23. Anonymous says:

    Sure won’t be conducting any business with that company.

    74
    1
  24. Anonymous says:

    you have 25k in a bank that someone gave you. You write check for 25k and mean to give it to person B. Person B never gets said check or if they do, never cashes it. You should still have 25K in bank. What am I missing here?
    If you do not have the money any longer. You have stolen it. Spent it. Same difference. There is no way you could not know about this. There is no mistaking spending 25K. If you found an extra 25k in your account, now where did that extra 25K come from. She stated herself she had multiple bank accounts. So one bank account i would assume, is for client money. That would be the common sense approach. She also stated her business was having difficulties. So you would definitely notice 25K extra laying around.

    103
    • Anonymous says:

      This case should be a slam dunk for the Prosecution. I can’t even blame them for f’ing this one up. If you are in financial trouble, you will definitely notice an extra $25k in your account. She spent his money, probably with the hopes of paying it back because I don’t know how she could think of ever getting away with this but fact remains, she spent his dough which is theft. Sadly, this ish will continue. With all the Caymanians in problems lately; whether it be stealing or corruption. Just watch them get off one by one.

      36
      3
  25. Anonymous says:

    Caymankind

    43
    7
  26. Anonymous says:

    Wow. Ridiculous. Crime does pay

    70
    1
  27. Anonymous says:

    Well I know where I won’t be getting my immigration services from.

    64
  28. Anonymous says:

    “…with the intention to permanently deprive.”

    One of the best defined offences of all legal systems in my humble opinion.

    Considering the above excerpt, I fail to see why the Crown took this course of action at all.

    Pretty elementary stuff.

    – Whodatis

    18
    35
    • Anonymous says:

      Criminal apologist

      35
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Who defends local criminality and blames foreigners for it. The poor gang members of West Bay are misunderstood innocents driven to crime by Tony Blair.

        26
        5
        • Anonymous says:

          How does absolute crap get so highly rated on CNS?
          You people are doing yourselves no favours at times like these.

          Poster, PLEASE forward even a single example of such rhetoric submitted by yours truly.

          I will be waiting.

          – Who

          *The rest of your supporting committee should feel free to join in on the exercise as well.

          At the end, when nothing of the sort is referenced, all of you should accept this warmest of invitations to kiss my you-know-what.

          2
          11
          • Anonymous says:

            We would all clearly love to kiss your you-know-what….just one problem -your large if dysfunctional head is so firmly lodged up your own you-know-what that none of us can get near.

            6
            2
            • Anonymous says:

              Only interested in the references buddy…

              – Who

              2
              5
              • Anonymous says:

                Well there was the West Bay criminal who jumped into the sea to avoid arrest. You were an out and out apologist for him. You expressed similar sentiments over other gang members who had been shot over time. And there is a steady stream of comments from you to the effect that you blame local discrimination against natives as a reason for their rampant criminality.

                2
                2
                • Anonymous says:

                  Re: “Well there was the West Bay criminal who jumped into the sea to avoid arrest. You were an out and out apologist for him.”

                  He was known as “Alaboo” (RIP) – and yes, we were very chummy years ago – and I know his siblings very well.

                  I make no apologies for expressing concern for an acquaintance that is lost at sea, and neither for expressing condolences when he turns up murdered in a foreign country.

                  If that makes me an “apologist” for a criminal in your eyes then – I cant help you Bo-Bo.

                  Re: “You expressed similar sentiments over other gang members who had been shot over time.”

                  I don’t recall these alleged sentiments, however, I will say this much; I am well known by MANY local “criminals” and imprisoned individuals on-island.

                  E.g. On every occasion I visit Northward Prison it almost feels like a reunion or a walk down memory lane: waves, pounds, and hugs (if allowed) the entire time.
                  Family members and associates are always amazed when such-and-such unsavoury character sends their regards upon learning of a connection hereto.
                  (“How the hell do you know these people, Who??!”)
                  🙂

                  I make no apologies and carry zero shame for the bonds and relationships I have formed along this walk of life.
                  I am proud to receive love and respect from individuals from every imaginable sector of my society.

                  Some asshole may call it being an “apologist”, I call it “the golden rule” and I live my life by it.

                  What I can also report is; never has any of these “unsavoury characters” attempted to recruit me into their criminality and such – in fact, I am sure most of them would chastise or beat me down if I was to ever go that route.

                  It is called mutual RESPECT amongst your peers and community members.
                  I give, receive, and enjoy it, do you?

                  – Whodatis

                  *Re: “And there is a steady stream of comments from you to the effect that you blame local discrimination against natives as a reason for their rampant criminality.”

                  Now, this is where you (and your supporters) become a f*cking liar.

                  If there is one thing I am not, it is a whiner and blamer.

                  In fact, the characteristics about me that most annoys YOU and your CNS commenting colleagues are; my insistence of personal responsibility, calls for national accountability, and the spirit of self-determination and independence.

                  **Lastly, you spend WAY too much time and effort following and keeping up with Whodatis.
                  Normally, I would be flattered, but this is a bit creepy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Except for Tony Blair.
        (Or do war criminals not fall into this category?)

        – Who

        🙂

        3
        7
    • Anonymous says:

      define “permanent”. This is since 2013, 5 years ago. How long does someone have to go without their money before you can press charges? Plus she lied, so intent was definitley there.

      So, we have deprivation and intention. In my opinion if she hasnt paid it back in 5 years she has no intent to ever pay it (i.e. permanently).

      CNS: See paragraph 4. She paid the money back.

      11
      3
      • Anonymous says:

        CNS: she paid it after she got caught right? To me that would help define “permanent”. If you pay after you’re caught you never had any intention of paying.

        21
        2
      • Anonymous says:

        Re: “In my opinion if she hasnt paid it back in 5 years she has no intent to ever pay it (i.e. permanently).”

        Lol…well, ok then, Bub.
        Those well learned Lords ain’t got nuttin’ on you, eh?!

        – Who

        2
        7
    • Anonymous says:

      If you lose the means to repay the money then that qualifies as ‘permanently depriving’. As the funds were due to pay immigration with a deadline, and consequences of not doing so, and by not having the means to make payment by the required deadline I would have thought it was a pretty simple case. Time can also be a factor, as can conduct ie avoiding contact with the person you ‘borrowed’ the funds from. By avoiding contact you are demonstrating an intent. As you say pretty elementary stuff.

      17
    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe if it was your money she “borrowed “…..

      12
      2
  29. Jotnar says:

    \whether it is a crime is not the same as convincing a jury here. Honestly, how did you think this would end? He is a PR holder and he eventually got the money back.

    8
    24
    • Ron the Observer says:

      This comment is egregious. Not sure if you’re pointing out an unfortunate trend or you are agreeing with the outcome on the basis that he is considered less than a Caymanian, but if it is the latter, you are a sick human being.

      Sincerely,
      A Caymanian

      11
      4
    • Anonymous says:

      Yea I think this all hinges on the fact that she returned the money (with interest). If she hadn’t it would have probably been a completely different verdict.

      1
      5
      • Whydunnit says:

        Wait. What? So, if I broken into Butterfield and stole $100,000, but then returned it the next day and paid for the damage, I’d be fine, right?

        10
  30. Slaire Cwindler says:

    She was overdrawn on two successive years when she took in this money. But she just forgot to file his applications….twice? And didn’t notice that all of a sudden she was solvent again? From $10,000 overdrawn to $17,000 in the black?

    Someone in financial trouble already, as her defense stated she was, would have had the $27,000+ sums in mind daily. And she would have known what was or wasn’t in her bank accounts.

    And she didn’t return his phone calls repeatedly. That’s guilt, denial and panic right there.

    Paying money back once you are caught does not negate the crime. It may help with your sentence, but not eliminate the crime.

    Cayman jurors, you just once again legitimized criminal behaviour and set yet another precedent. It beggars belief.

    83
    1
  31. Keen observer says:

    Cayman justice.
    Everybody knows everybody here.
    None of the jury wanted to find her guilty despite the evidence presented.

    If she is such a flawed businesswoman, perhaps she needs to close down this “business”.

    63
    1
  32. Anon. says:

    Wasn’t that the same defence used by that travel agent whose business went bust too?
    I am hearing the same buzzwords, “stupid”, “flawed businesswoman”, “poor business model”.

    The message is throw around the right buzzwords and you can be acquitted.

    Hard facts are if I take money from a person to do a service for that person and I don’t complete that service and use the money for something else, that is deception at its best and theft at its worst.

    62
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      Same same same. I came here to post this but you beat me to it.
      I’m going into business now!!! Heheh

      14
    • Anonymous says:

      Immigration department takes money from people all the time and fails to meet the deadlines quite often. How come they can’t be taken into court for such things? Oh right.. because they’re government.

  33. Lord Denning says:

    Can someone please explain to me how this was not a crime?

    53
    2
  34. Anonymous says:

    Willfully depriving others of their money should never be socially acceptable.

    36
  35. Anonymous says:

    Presumably she is now banned from owning or operating a business?

    30
    3
  36. Wtf says:

    Jaw hits the floor. What kind of wretched example is this setting for service businesses? Another sob story and then let of due to impending demise. This has to be one of the most lenient places on earth, no wonder nefarious activity is on the rise.

    47
    2
  37. Anonymous says:

    There goes the myth that only Caymanians get convicted on white collar crime…

    32
    1
  38. Anonymous says:

    What?? Taking money on false pretenses is not a crime? It is everywhere else…

    122
    4

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

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

SIGN UP FOR THE CNS NEWS LETTER, SENT EVERY WEEKDAY STRAIGHT TO  YOUR INBOX