Panton & Turner didn’t break law over loan, CSPL finds
(CNS): A bridging loan made by Wayne Panton while he was still premier to Sabrina Turner, his health minister at the time, to help her buy a new CI$1.6 million home did not breach the requirements for disclosure on the Register of Interests for politicians and senior government officials under the Standards in Public Life Act.
However, the Commission for Standards in Public Life (CSPL) has stressed the need for more transparency and implied that this deal could have been more open to avoid the perception of a conflict.
In 2023, Panton loaned Turner the significant sum of money under a legal agreement to cover the gap between the delayed sale of her existing home and the purchase of the new one. While Turner declared the loan on her register of interest submission, she failed to declare that Panton was the source of the cash. Panton did not declare the loan at all because he said the law did not require him to do so as he was providing, not receiving, the loan.
While the commission found no breach of the law, it said the deal had fallen short of the “full and frank disclosure of all transactions that may have a possible or perceived conflict of interest”.
When the agreement between them was made public, it raised considerable controversy. The deal also played a significant part in Turner’s resignation from the government because her former Caucus colleague, McKeeva Bush MP (WBW), had demanded some consequence for this deal, which he suggested was corrupt and placed Panton in a position of undue influence over one of his ministers.
Despite this claim, the deal did not prevent Panton from being ousted from Cabinet after significant policy differences between Panton and many members of the PACT government withdrew their support for him as leader.
After examining the declarations made by both parties, the CSPL determined that there had been no breaches of the Register of Interests requirements, as outlined in the Standards in Public Life Act, but said it raised questions about the perception of such an agreement.
“It is prudent however, for the CSPL to emphasize to all persons in public life the importance of transparency. The CSPL’s position is that even if there is no conflict of interest, there should be no uncertainty of any possible or perceived conflict of interest,” the commission said in a release about the conclusion of its investigation.
The CSPL said it is reviewing its guidance notes for Persons in Public Life who are required to complete declarations and considering potential legislative amendments to the law so that those required to complete the register have a clear and full understanding of what should be declared and where possible or perceived conflicts can occur.
“The Register of Interests is a vital tool for promoting accountability and trust in public office. It ensures
that conflicts of interest are disclosed, enhances public confidence in the integrity of government officials and upholds the ethical standards expected of those in public service,” the commission said.
“We urge all persons in public life to adhere strictly to their obligations of transparency and to declare all interests as required. It is crucial that these disclosures are made in a timely and comprehensive manner to maintain the public’s trust and confidence.”
Although there is a constitutional mandate for all senior civil servants and those serving on public authority boards, councils, commissions and committees to declare their interests, many simply don’t. During a recent search of the register, CNS found that at least a dozen board members had failed to submit anything at all or had made declarations that were clearly inadequate.
Failure to declare interests as mandated constitutes an offence under the law, and anyone found to have breached the law can face a fine of up to $10,000 or even jail time. CNS understands that staff shortages prevent the Commissions Secretariat from actually enforcing the register, and they wait for the public to file a complaint before looking into any alleged breaches.
However, in the release, officials said that the CSPL was committed “to ensuring the highest standards of conduct in public life and will continue to monitor compliance with the Standards in Public Life Act”.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Government oversight, Politics
When it waynes, it pours.
Hi Wayne.
I’d like the same loan with the same terms please.
Please respond here so we can make it happen.
Still hasn’t sold the other one mind you. The one she clearly bought to try and flip, given it’s history.
I am thoroughly confused. The Commission determined that the parties complied with the law. The transaction apparently was a matter of public record. The Commission seemed to have determined that there was no conflict. They emphasized that public officials should comply with the law which they determined was done.
If the law requires compliance for transparency purposes and you have been found to be in compliance, what more do you do?
They do not appear to be saying that but if the Commission thinks they should have done more it would be helpful if they told us the public exactly what that might be.
If you can’t determine the difference between what is legal, what is ethical and what might need to be conceived to make sure we don’t live in a society where politicians can’t hold economic incentives over each others heads in matters of state, you’re a little more than thoroughly confused.
Well 3:18 if you are so thoroughly enlightened then why cant you tell us “what might need to be conceived”? That seems so vague as to be a pointless discussion now. Surely the existing legislation was not done in isolation but rather with the benefit of for example the UK equivalent legislation.
In reviewing the coverage and Commission statement this seems to me on balance to now be a nonissue.
“CNS understands that staff shortages however, prevent the commission’s secretariat from actually enforcing the register”
Public understands that lack of work ethic and world class ineptitude however, prevent the commission’s secretariat from actually enforcing the register
Public understands that a complete lack of honesty and integrity amongst many of our politicians makes the prospect of them actually declaring anything remote.
It isn’t about law, it is about moral ethics. The MP’s that used government credit cards to gamble and buy personal gifts didn’t break the law either.
As long as they paid their personal expenses on the statement each period, who cares?
In any other world but Cayman the use of a Government credit card to gamble is a goddam crime. We need to stop this BS of making excuses giving the WELL KNOWN criminal elements in our politics a break!
What I love about the Cayman islands is that the upper aristocracy are foreigners. Gives you a feel of selling out your own people.
Fosters et al ain’t shit compared to their handlers from overseas. They made their bed. Lay in it because you’re all traitors.
I’ll say this and make it clear. The Caymanian merchant class when they flee to wherever they end up with their money exploited from their own people won’t fit in wherever they go.
When you’ve destroyed Cayman, flee to Florida or UK and try to make your mark there, you’ll be no different than the bush dwellers we all started as.
Stinks to high hell! Paid loyalty! Reminds me of 2021 Campaign in Newlands.
The only favour was access to the loan per se. If there was an appearance of impropriety, was that not cleared by the fact that they complied with the law on disclosure and the terms were commercial in terms of interest and security?
Also, one-off lending to a person does not break the law; otherwise, you could never lend $20 to a cousin to buy gas!
They are both PEPs, and KYD$1.6mln is USD$2mln, so this isn’t gas money. That’s 4 or 5 times her total annual comp.
4:50 Have you tried to buy a house in Cayman lately? This is at most twice what the average house is. That is the reality we all face.
If they were not ‘politicians’, would this ‘loan’ taken place?
I won’t say this often, but Mckeeva is correct. This loan could and likely did sway some key decisions Sabrina had to make while Wayne was still Premier. I’m willing to bet she did not vote to oust him, regardless of whether she thought it was the correct thing to do.
12:56 You quoting McKeeva Bush on something like this? really? Seriously – you have to be frickin kidding! The convict?! The person who has been central to every narrative involving corruption in this country going back decades??
You don’t understand. These are just regular people giving 1.6 million dollars to each other like normal folks do. Normal folks who have 1.6 million dollars to give each other who just happen to be elected members of Parliament. Normal people like you and I. Are you saying they should be held to a higher ethical standards just because they’re elected members of government? Can’t you just leave these normal millionaires who are public figures alone? They’ve investigated themselves and found they haven’t done anything wrong so are we done here?
LMAO Can you lend me…
Like Big Mac has a leg to stand on when talking about corruption. For example, Ritz condo, Hyatt sale, Stan Thomas affair to name but a few.
Prosecutors should have looked into those issues.
Still can. There is no statue of limitations on CRIMES.
Around 1,000 of Mac’s status grants appear to deserve a sniff. How about starting with the grants to people who had lived here for less than 5 years? Corruption appears self-evident for some of them. No need to even dig, just peek under the rug.
All of the politicians submitted a list of people who they wanted to become voter/citizens. Bush didn’t have the longest list of people.
So blame Bush for many things but there were other much worse politicians in terms of numbers.
Doesn’t address the prospect (indeed likelihood) of corruption though, does it?
So did the house cost KYD$1.6mln, or was that the loan principal? Why didn’t the existing home provide necessary collateral for the second home? What is the interest rate and term? Nobody lends money for nothing. What was the quid pro quo expectation at the heart of this loan? Why didn’t she go to a bank?!?
May not have “broke” any laws but smells worse than Mt Trashmore on a steamy wet July day!
The Foxes really are in charge of the Hen-house! I would say I’m disappointed in the Commission but then I’m reminded they are all politically appointed.
The Chairperon of the SIPL Commission is a Newlands Voter….isnt that a bit of a conflict of interest?
Maybe that’s why they won’t put a stop sign at Hirst Road and the bypass.
If you have missed the flashing STOP sign at that intersection I think you should be taking a cab.
Not on Hirst Road leading to Newlands.
In fact, there was an accident at this exact spot this evening.
Wont matter anyway, both of them will not be voted back in. Both have failed miserably to represent their constituents or to make any changes that will leave these islands in a better position than when they found it.
Yes the loan was legal nobody disputes that. What we are concerned with is how much the loan and Charge over the house ifluenced Sabrinas decisons in Cabinet. Ther eis no escaping that question and someone needs to answer it. We are not fooled by the cloak and dagger report.
Not sure you are correct about that first sentence, unless you can confirm that Panton has a licence as a secured moneylender.
I wonder if they will be looking into certain so called local elite philanthropists giving money to political minions to buy votes and influence with turkeys and hams and cash for bills for the next election?
Or even cash for votes, after casting votes perhaps, which would never happen in West Bay, right?
I don’t understand the controversy over this. He lent her the money. Nothing dodgy about it. He’s done well for himself and he’s a wealthy man. So surely it’s his business to whom he decides to give his money? What is dodgy about that exactly? All seems above board. This seems to be more about envy than anything. Childish and petty. If we want to talk money laundering or racketeering let’s take a closer look at why the Brac needs a 50 million-dollar school. Because that project reeks of corruption.
He’s not licensed by CIMA to be offering mortgages.
If you do not understand something staring you in the face, then do not vote!
The controversy is that when you are a public servant you are expected to act with integrity and ethics. Do you think that lending money to someone who’s vote you depend on is ethical?
Not only do board members not declare interests, they are not fit to serve on boards. The Ministers place their mules on boards to do their biddings.
The people seem to be lethargic and resigned to this fate and simply say “that is just the way it is”. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE YOU CHOOSE IT TO STAY THAT WAY.
You will accept your free turkeys for Christmas and vote them back in.
When will you realise that the MPs are not elected to do little handouts and favours for the few.
The unprecedented spending over the last 4 years should have everyone alarmed.
Broke plenty of ethical standards but hey, so it go 🤷
Slight typo CNS: “Despite this claim however, it did save Panton from being ousted from Cabinet when the significant policy differences between Panton and many members of the then PACT government withdrew their support for him as leader.”
I believe it should say “did not save Panton”
CNS NOTE: Slight but critical!!! Thanks for noticing its been corrected.
Actually did save him for a while, prolonged the inevitable.
Panton said it was an arms-length commercial transaction, which included security by way of a legal charge over Turner’s property, for loan to Turner.
Did Panton have a trade and business licence to carry on business as a secured moneylender? If not, Panton’s carrying out business, even this one transaction, criminally because it is an offence.
This is significant because, if so, any benefit, gain or profit derived from this “criminal conduct” amounts to “criminal property”. Check the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Trade and Business Licensing Act.
Of course Panton is a lawyer and surely had a trade and business licence to carry out business as a secured moneylender, so is no occurrence of a money laundering offence, right?
Oh give me a break. You don’t need a trade and business license to lend someone money!
Dont be silly buggers and ignorant – you do not need a licence or any authorisation to lend money as an individual. That is not banking business. This is a non issue.
How many people can I lend to before I need to be licensed?
Legally, as many as you like as long as you are not charging interest.
There is no legal restriction on persons lending money to others. There isnt even any protection against usury!
If you are taking money in from people and paying them interest then you may be accused of taking deposits and your backside will be on fire then!
Common law usury still applies in Caymanian law, and has not been abrogated by statute.
Also stop conflating moneylending and deposit-taking issues, perhaps as a misdirection tactic. The former, not the later, is what happened here.
Still doesn’t look good.
Smell rank too.