Lawyer argues Watson conviction ‘politically expedient’
(CNS): Andrew Trollope KC told the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal on Thursday that the crown’s case against Canover Watson was directly connected to and influenced by the government’s goal to get the Cayman Islands removed from the Financial Action Task Force’s grey list and the conviction is unsafe. The UK-based lawyer argued that the case was “politically helpful and expedient”. He said the junior prosecutor in the case and the Anti-Corruption Commission investigator were conflicted as they were also involved in the campaign to remove this jurisdiction from that list.
In October 2022, Watson, a CIFA executive at the time of the offences, was convicted on multiple charges in connection with an invoicing scam. Prosecutors argued that he dishonestly took over US$1.5 million from the regional football body CONCACAF for sports goods that were never supplied. He is currently serving an eight-year prison term.
Watson was tried alongside Bruce Blake, a former lawyer with Maples and Calder who was also a CIFA executive. He was found guilty of false accounting and, like Watson, has appealed the conviction.
Trollope, arguing on several grounds, began by pointing out that CONCACAF had never reported a crime in relation to the allegations and, to this day, has still not filed a complaint. He said that the late disclosure of thousands of emails that supported Watson’s defence was not taken into consideration by the court in the trial.
He said the judge in the case, Chief Justice Margaret Ramsay-Hale, failed to sum up Watson’s evidence in her directions to the jury, even though the former local businessman and community leader had taken the stand in his own defence for several days.
Trollope argued that there was a question mark over whether there really was a crime or dishonesty in this case. He stressed that the prosecution came about because of issues with an audit of CIFA in which the FATF accountants raised a red flag over the conversion of a loan to a sponsorship deal and not because CONCACAF reported any theft.
He said the case was connected to the desperate efforts by the CIG to get off the FATF grey list. Noting the public statements about the CONCACAF case and its importance in achieving that left the “bystander with the perception” that the case against Watson was biased. He argued that the authorities made it clear that a successful prosecution and appropriately lengthy sentence would achieve that goal.
The lawyer said that, according to documentation, the eight-year sentence had been seen by the authorities as suitable enough to convince the FATF that Cayman was compliant with their requirement that it prosecute and punish money laundering.
In his later arguments against the sentence, he maintained that, when compared to crimes of a similar nature, it was far too long. He said the judge’s decision to have some of the sentences for the separate convictions run consecutively pushed up the total time Watson should serve to around double what would have been fair.
The appeal court judges asked if he was implying there was no crime, regardless of the motivation. In response, the lawyer said there were questions around whether or not the crown had actually established any dishonesty on Watson’s part, especially given his client’s evidence, which he implied had been overlooked. Trollope pointed out that Watson had not been charged with theft but secret commissions — a charge that had confused the jury.
Meanwhile, Cairns Nelson KC, who represented Blake during the trial and at the appeal, said his client, who has now served his time, had done nothing dishonest and gained nothing from the crime he was convicted of committing.
Following submissions from Eloise Marshall KC, who represented the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and defended the crown’s case and the convictions of both men, the appeal court said that they would take some time to consider the appeal and deliver their judgment in due course.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Good chance the conviction may be overturned. Mr Watson’s KC put forth some good arguments. It is common knowledge that CIG was desperate to have a conviction to get off the FATF list.
And who better to fiddle it than the ACC!
Probably wiser just to hush. Bruce was given two years and he been out long time.
Failed appeals should result longer sentences.
They do
And deportation
“The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means.”
Georges Bernanos
Canover Watson…Con Over.
With Bruce Blake and Jeff “squealer” Webb, and others ripped off the entire Central America, Caribbean, USA and Canada ..ie CONCACAF.
Kids in Haiti had their football boots and balls stolen from them!!
Now sit down and Shut the Front Door!!
Why are comments closed on the “Cops fire beanbags….” story?
Is it because CNS has been pressured by the police not to allow comments?
CNS: We always keep the comments closed on a case after a suspect has been arrested until there is an outcome – the case is dropped or the person has pleaded guilty or there is a verdict one way or another. This has been our policy since we launched in 2008.
You can take the tinfoil hat off now.
Ah yes Young Caymanian of the year from memory
I remember the event when the voting was clearly biased towards his carefully crafted image of poor local boy made good.
He has traded on that image to receive a leg up from the many people he fooled.
Can’t keep taking advantage of people’s trust , as you have shown us who you are.
Live with it.
Never known a more Jamaican Caymanian…apart from the many others.
Like Chris “Testicular Fortitude” Saunders?
Hmmmm.. a most dangerous man.
Common knowledge that the Anti-Corruption Commission investigator is conflicted generally.
He is a hero, just release him and wipe his record clean, then immediately allow him to be a MP.
Common knowledge that Canover is a con man.
A lot more should have jailed. Not certain why they are not spilling the beans? Particularly in the care pay gate?
CIG in trouble!!! You can fool some people sometime but you can’t fool all the people all the time!!! God is wide awake!!
Desperado was wrong.
“The appeal court judges asked if he was implying there was no crime, regardless of the motivation.” Exactly. 👍
CNS
I wonder whether you might be able to confirm whether it was in fact Mr. Watson who was tasked with writing the work permit fee schedule several years ago when he was Deputy Chairman of the Business Staffing Plan Board?
There appears to be some significant disparity in work permit fees between those charged for non equity partners in law firms. It seems a few firms call their non equity partners associate partners. The majority call them salaried partners. They seem the same to me. Why would there be such a big disparity in the work permit fees for the seemingly the same job at different law firms?
CNS: I’ve no idea, but another reader might know.
Total rubbish
What is total rubbish?
1. That he was deputy chair of the BSP Board?
2. That he was tasked with a review of the fees charged for different work permit job titles?
3. That there is a significant disparity between the fee charged for associate partners compared to that charged for salaried partners?
4. That there is no obvious legitimate basis for any such disparity?
I assume that given it is TOTAL rubbish you deny all four?
Yes – he was a primary author of the fee schedule now encapsulated in the Immigration Regulations.
Yes – there is a significant difference in the fees payable by firms employing expatriate “associate partners”compared to those employing expatriate “salaried partners.”
Yes – the whole issue is ripe for investigation by the ACC.
Yes – Legge was right.
Immigration Regulations (2019 Revision), which started life as the Immigration Regulations, 2004, prescribe annual work permit fees including, at pages 55 through 58, for legal activities.
Associate Partner $18,200
Salaried Partner $30,375
Equity Partner. $32,400
Equity Partners are owners. Associate and Salaried Partners are not. All are held out as Partners.
What is the difference between an Associate Partner and a Salaried Partner?
About $5 million a yers I think.
CI$12,175 per partner per year. Likely several million dollars over the past 2 decades, but hey, who’s counting?
Nothing. Just a different name for the same category. An associate partner is a salaried partner.
So why are certain firms paying so much less than others?
It seems because they use a different title.
Oh good. I feared it may have been because of some underhand dealings. Thank you for putting my mind at ease.
Lodge people gonna lodge.
It’s in the DNA.
He ain’t Lodge.
He is lodge at the east wing of HMP Northward.
Now we know why the real KC gave up the legal profession and went to play with the Sunshine Band.
Where’s Jeff?
Hashtag.
#WWJD
What a load of trollope.
I was wondering when some moron would make fun of the K.C.’s name.
Elementary my dear.
Who KC is…?
Give It Up
Well, he has got jto say something.
I can kinda see where he has a point
He really got off lightly. Already served a light sentence and should have left it there. If they want a do-over, let’s hope they retry with the lens of full CIFA files, and re-sentence him.
So hateful. Read properly and find the truth
Should have forfeited all his wealth to a special fund used for sports on the Island.
Instead, he and his cronies bought land that they still own with the loot.
I’d love for this to be made public.
What a lot of male bovine manure.
So disappointed in Watson and Blake. Both had everything going for them and Watson, in particular, had scaled the heights of real success.
If that’s the way you feel, you never really knew these “gentlemen”.
13 @ 1.25pm – Greed! Not disappointed nor surprised.
Well both are from JA
Is there a “How do you feel after reading this?” emoji for numb and disappointed? That one. That’s my ‘spirit emoji’.