TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Minister: $19 million Carenage fishing centre under probe
Gail Alexander
Published:
Thursday, September 18, 2014
The Land and Marine Resources Ministry has referred the Carenage Fishing Centre project to the Finance Ministry to probe, since almost $19 million was spent towards construction in 2009 under the PNM Government and only a shell was produced. Making those points in Tuesday’s 2015 budget debate in Parliament, Land and Marine Resources Minister Jairam Seemungal said he had asked Finance Minister Larry Howai to look into the situation.
He added: “Close to $19 million spent on this and not even a roof! It was not in the Agriculture Ministry, and Fisheries had nothing to do with it. It was under Community Development. So I’ve asked the minister to investigate and see what transpired.”
Seemungal said the Carenage fishing centre was developed by the Community Development Ministry under the PNM administration in 2009. Since there was no consultation with the fisheries sector on it, he said he spoke to the ministry’s permanent secretary and Nipdec and obtained a report.
He said it was found that $1.4 million was spent by one K Jamison and Associates Company Ltd for conceptual and supervisory consultant designs for the structure, and a $16.5 million award was also made to Montex Trinidad Ltd in December 2009 to build the centre. Seemungal said it was projected to be completed in four months to accommodate 108 fishing vessels.
But, he said: “Today the project remains just a shell: no roof, no facility, not even a place for the fishermen to fix their net. When I enquired from the Fisheries Division what transpired, they said the Community Development Ministry had no consultation whatsoever on this facility.
“So they designed and awarded the contract without consultation with the Fisheries Division, which is in touch with the fishermen. When I enquired how many fishermen were there, the initial figure I was told was seven fisherfolk and vessels.” He said there were over 130 vessels at Cocorite and over 100 at another Carenage location.
“So one wonders what happened, why this facility started when no work was done on the other two and why the Diego Martin West MP (Keith Rowley) keeps coming here and bullying the Government that we must fix the centre,” he added. Seemungal said the fishermen would have the Carenage fishing centre after the investigation into the project is completed. Also, $300 million is being spent to upgrade all other fishing centres.
He said the ministry was challenged by land-grabbing by people, especially in the East-West Corridor, who owned HDC houses, rented them out and grabbed state land, some as many as five lots. Seemungal also warned people selling state land that it involved a serious charge of fraud and he had recruited National Security to clamp down on that. The ministry also hired private security to patrol and assist with managing state land. So far 600 illegal buildings have been removed.
The ministry, which has regularised 100 of T&T’s 350 squatter sites, is seeking to deal with squatters on privately owned lands in an arrangement with owners. Ways of working this out will be explored. Seemungal said 900 more leases were to be issued to former Caroni workers, including 800 by year end. The majority will be completed by next March.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-09- ... nder-probe
MILLION$ MI$$ING
By Andre Bagoo Sunday, March 29 2015
MULTI-million-dollar discrepancies have been identified in the books of the Strategic Services Agency (SSA) for the years 2003 to 2008, according to long-awaited reports done by the Auditor General this year which were submitted to the Parliament last week
.Sealed reports, tabled in the Senate on Tuesday and then in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, state that in addition to there being mis-matches, weaknesses continue to exist in the internal control system of the intelligence agency.
The SSA was established by an act of Parliament on October 4, 1995, under the PNM. Under the Strategic Services Agency Act, which was later amended in 1997, the main functions of the agency are to: “act as an office for centralising information that could facilitate the detection and prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.”
Crucially, the act stipulates that the agency is to “provide intelligence and analytical support for the appropriate operational and intelligence arms of the appropriate services”. The SSA is also to “provide a nucleus of specialist intelligence personnel who are able to advise and assist investigating officers concerning operational priorities and deployment of resources.”
Employees of the SSA must take an oath of secrecy and the agency is given power to “exercise disciplinary control over” staff. Section 10 of the act stipulates that the accounts of the agency are to be audited annually by the Auditor General, forwarded to the Minister of National Security (under whose ministry the SSA falls) and laid in Parliament.
Audits for the years 2003 to 2008 had been outstanding for years, until finally being tabled in Parliament last week. Though tabled, the Office of the Auditor General attached seals to the reports, as has become the practice in relation to these reports.
Nonetheless, the reports, seen by Sunday Newsday, state that for each of the years 2003 to 2008 respectively, “weaknesses continue to exist in the internal control system. These were drawn to the attention of the Agency.”
For the year 2007, there was an un-reconciled difference of $2.5 million in relation to a cash in bank figure of $12.3 million. The general ledger figure for the same item also appeared off by $1.6 million in the balance sheet.
“Several errors were noted in the cash flow statement,” the Acting Auditor General Majeed Ali said. The auditor, therefore, qualified his audit report.
In the year ended September 2007, training expenses rose from $139, 481 to $6.8 million. The total government subvention for that year grew from $10.6 million the year prior to $18.8 million, almost a doubling of the agency’s funding. The expenses for computer and related accessories was $4.1 million, up from $24,766.87. A figure of $1 million was recorded as due from the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.
For the year 2008, cash in bank was again problematic, with an un-reconciled difference of about $400,000 in the reconciliation statement and a difference of $1.9 million in the balance sheet. Fixed assets were also understated, and a difference of $300,000 in accruals could not be explained. The accounts were again qualified. Subvention rose to $20 million in that year and an item for “Special Short-Term Projects” appeared at a cost of $6.6 million.
Additionally, for the year 2005, the figure of $601,160.66 representing fixed assets was understated by $273,774.12 as a result of prior year errors. As a result, Acting Auditor General Majeed Ali qualified the report for this year as well. A similar problem occurred in the books for 2006, with the same item being understated by $279,574.01 and therefore wrongly appearing in the books as $838,289.09.
An expense item of $1.5 million appeared in the books for 2006, in relation to the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) set up to implement counter-measures in relation to money-laundering.
In 2010, Sunday Newsday reported that over a span of two decades, successive Auditors General have questioned weaknesses in internal controls at the State agency which was identified as one body to be subsumed under new surveillance arrangements in the wake of the 2010 disclosures on the extent of State spying on citizens.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,208959.html
Muslimeen deal sent to DPP, after integrity probe of former PM
ANDRE BAG00 Saturday, April 11 2015
THE Integrity Commission has referred two complaints of corruption against “a former Prime Minister” in respect to “an agreement entered with the Jamaat al Muslimeen” to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution.
According to the 27thAnnual Report of the watch dog body, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, the two complaints were among 67 matters investigated in the year 2014.
A table in the report lists the matters which fell under probe in that year and sets out the two complaints which were referred to the DPP. The first complaint is described as a, “complaint of corruption against a former Prime Minister in respect to an agreement entered into with the Jamaat al Muslimeen.”On this complaint, the Commission states it took the following action: “Persons interviewed, statements recorded and documents obtained.” On the status of the complaint, the Commission states, “Report sent to the Director, Public Prosecutions. ”The second complaint is described in identical terms.
However, the former prime minister in question is not disclosed. The nature of each alleged breach is not specified and it is not clear whether both complaints are identical in nature or overlap with other matters.
It has previously been reported that former Prime Minister Patrick Manning had been investigated in 2010 by the police for an alleged land deal with the Muslimeen.
In March 2011, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC found insufficient evidence and closed the case.
Gaspard then stated, “I have received the file. I have received certain advice and it is my considered opinion that the evidence contained in the file is insufficient to mount a criminal prosecution against former prime minister Manning. ”Bakr had alleged in an affidavitth at prior to the 2002 General Election, he had agreed with Manning that “certain lands” at1 Mucurapo Road, were to be transferred to the Muslimeen by the Government and that the Government of the day would not have enforced the debt arising out of the State’s claim against theterrorist group stemming from its 1990 attack on Parliament and the media.
According to Bakr, the Jamaat would have assisted the then PNM in the impending general election by campaigning in the marginal seats.
However, Gaspard noted the State had, in fact, sought to enforce the judgment debt against the Muslimeen as recently as 2009, at which point no lands had been transferred tothe Muslim organisation by the then PNM administration.
The details of the complaints referred in 2014 to the Office of the DPP by the Integrity Commission are unclear.
Manning is not named in the2014 report.
Efforts to contact Gaspard ,Manning and the Integrity Commission were unsuccessful.
The Commission, in its 2014report, also states an investigation in relation to Manning over the award of land and construction of the Church of the Light House at Guanapo is continuing.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,209535.html
UML wrote:Muslimeen deal sent to DPP, after integrity probe of former PM
ANDRE BAG00 Saturday, April 11 2015
THE Integrity Commission has referred two complaints of corruption against “a former Prime Minister” in respect to “an agreement entered with the Jamaat al Muslimeen” to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution.
According to the 27thAnnual Report of the watch dog body, tabled in Parliament on Wednesday, the two complaints were among 67 matters investigated in the year 2014.
A table in the report lists the matters which fell under probe in that year and sets out the two complaints which were referred to the DPP. The first complaint is described as a, “complaint of corruption against a former Prime Minister in respect to an agreement entered into with the Jamaat al Muslimeen.”On this complaint, the Commission states it took the following action: “Persons interviewed, statements recorded and documents obtained.” On the status of the complaint, the Commission states, “Report sent to the Director, Public Prosecutions. ”The second complaint is described in identical terms.
However, the former prime minister in question is not disclosed. The nature of each alleged breach is not specified and it is not clear whether both complaints are identical in nature or overlap with other matters.
It has previously been reported that former Prime Minister Patrick Manning had been investigated in 2010 by the police for an alleged land deal with the Muslimeen.
In March 2011, Director of Public Prosecutions Roger Gaspard SC found insufficient evidence and closed the case.
Gaspard then stated, “I have received the file. I have received certain advice and it is my considered opinion that the evidence contained in the file is insufficient to mount a criminal prosecution against former prime minister Manning. ”Bakr had alleged in an affidavitth at prior to the 2002 General Election, he had agreed with Manning that “certain lands” at1 Mucurapo Road, were to be transferred to the Muslimeen by the Government and that the Government of the day would not have enforced the debt arising out of the State’s claim against theterrorist group stemming from its 1990 attack on Parliament and the media.
According to Bakr, the Jamaat would have assisted the then PNM in the impending general election by campaigning in the marginal seats.
However, Gaspard noted the State had, in fact, sought to enforce the judgment debt against the Muslimeen as recently as 2009, at which point no lands had been transferred tothe Muslim organisation by the then PNM administration.
The details of the complaints referred in 2014 to the Office of the DPP by the Integrity Commission are unclear.
Manning is not named in the2014 report.
Efforts to contact Gaspard ,Manning and the Integrity Commission were unsuccessful.
The Commission, in its 2014report, also states an investigation in relation to Manning over the award of land and construction of the Church of the Light House at Guanapo is continuing.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,209535.html
UNCLAS PORT OF SPAIN 000376
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PTER TD
SUBJECT: BAKR ALLEGATION AGAINST PM AGAIN SURFACES
REF: PORT OF SPAIN 0222
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY
¶1. (SBU) Summary: A judge has directed that the 2006 allegation by
Jamaat al Muslimeen (JAM) leader Yasin Abu Bakr that he cut a deal
with Prime Minister Manning on the eve of the 2002 election to
provide foot soldiers for the PNM campaign be investigated. Bakr
claims that, in exchange, Manning was going to forgive a large JAM
legal debt. While some in the opposition are highlighting this
claim, Attorney General Jeremie argued it has little veracity and is
at variance with testimony Bakr provided in 2005. Manning also
denied the allegation, as have other GOTT officials. Given Bakr's
low credibility and the endless dead ends of the local legal system,
it is unlikely this allegation will lead to anything. End Summary.
A Murky Claim
--------------------
¶2. (SBU) The JAM's legal debt of approximately $5 million stems
from fines related to its role in the 1990 coup. The GOTT has been
seeking to seize JAM properties for some time to cover the debt. In
2006, as part of the effort to keep his properties, Bakr provided an
affidavit where he raised his alleged electoral deal with Manning.
Bakr has lost repeatedly in local courts and also before the Privy
Council, which ruled his affidavit "irrelevant," and said the JAM's
properties could be sold. Local High Court Justice Narine, though,
ruled on Sept 11 that Bakr's allegation merits investigation since,
if true, they would "strike at the heart of our democratic system of
government."
No Authority
------------------
¶3. (SBU) PM Manning denied the allegations, asking if they were
true, why has the government spent years trying to seize Bakr's
lands? Minister of Works and Transport Colm Imbert, a Manning
confidant, also questioned Narine's authority to "order the police
to investigate an unproven allegation." Attorney General John
Jeremie further noted that Bakr's 2006 claim is belied by testimony
he gave in a separate 2005 case. A close aide to the PM also told us
that Manning will not formally respond to the accusations because it
is the Attorney General's responsibility to do so. The aide added
that Bakr's properties will soon be sold.
Comment: Into the Round File
--------------------------------------
¶4. (SBU) It is by no means clear that there is anything to Bakr's
allegations; his reputation for probity and honesty is not exactly
sterling in T&T. Many here are still upset over his role in the
1990 coup and also his supposed current criminal ties. While there
is a widespread belief that Manning was assisted by the JAM in 2002,
the reason is unclear and there is now no love lost between the two.
While the press is trying to keep the story alive -- including
through a false allegation that DHS listed this case on its website
(we have gone back to the newspaper on this) -- the most likely
outcome is for the matter to float away. It will occasionally
surface, but absent a smoking gun, not threaten Manning in any way.
KUSNITZ
https://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/09/09P ... IN376.html
Today the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Archie and Justices of Appeal Bereaux and Smith dismissed the appeal of the Appellants, all former members of the Board of Directors of the University of Trinidad and Tobago, against the judgment of Justice Kokaram whereby they sought to have the cases brought against them by the University dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2014.
Civil Appeal No. 099 of 2014.
DR. RENE MONTEIL
GISELLE MARFLEET
SCOTT HILTON CLARKE
ERROL PILGRIM
vs
THE UNIVERSITY OF
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Today the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Archie and Justices of Appeal Bereaux and Smith dismissed the appeal of the Appellants, all former members of the Board of Directors of the University of Trinidad and Tobago, against the judgment of Justice Kokaram whereby they sought to have the cases brought against them by the University dismissed. The Court of Appeal ordered that the Appellants are to all pay the costs of the University. At the hearing today Dr. Rene Monteil withdrew his appeal against the decision of the learned Trial Judge.
The Court of Appeal found no merit in the arguments of the other Appellants that the Judge was wrong in refusing to strike out the actions and the Court held that there was more than enough evidence before the Court produced by the University to justify the action proceedings to trial.
On the 11th April 2014 Justice Kokaram delivered a written judgment dismissing the applications of the Defendants seeking to have the case against them struck out.
The Defendants are former members of the Board of Directors of the University of Trinidad and Tobago (“UTT”). The first Defendant was UTT’s former President. For the most part these Defendants were members of the UTT Board over the period 2005 to November 2010.1 The present Board of UTT resolved recently in 2012, after conducting a legal and financial audit of UTT’s affairs, to commence an action against these directors for breach of their fiduciary duty and failure to exercise care, diligence and skill in the management of UTT’s business affairs under section 99 of the Companies Act Chap. 81:01 and as a fiduciary in relation to two transactions. The first transaction was the entering into (and maintaining) a sub lease with Consolidated Services Limited (CSL) for a five year renewable lease for a residential/resort complex in Aripo (“the Aripo facility”) at a monthly rental of TT$50,000.00.
UTT contends that this sub lease was defective and that the Defendants failed to carry out any due diligence searches before entering into this transaction. Further during the term of the sub lease they were advised by its legal department to terminate the sub lease as a result of the discovery of alleged defects in its title. The Defendants failed to terminate the lease. UTT as a result of the Defendants’ alleged failure to act prudently, seeks the return of the sums of money paid in rental and for the cost of operating the Aripo facility for the duration of the term. This sum totals $10,899,999.10.
The second transaction relates only to the first Defendant. This transaction involved the accommodation of two guests at the Aripo Guest House, Spiritual Advisor of former Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Reverend Juliana Pena and her companion. It is contended by UTT that the first Defendant in breach of his fiduciary duty instructed that those persons be accommodated there in the absence of any Board resolution approving UTT rates for those persons or approving of their accommodation in the said Guest House of personal guests of Board members, or accommodating visitors with no connection to UTT. The first Defendant paid for the accommodation personally and had those persons been charged the normal visitor rates it would have resulted in additional income to UTT of TT$126,393.00. As a result of the loss sustained on these transactions UTT claims declaratory relief that the Defendants are in breach of their fiduciary duties.
The Judgment of the Court of Appeal now clears the way for the University to pursue this action to trial before the Court whereby the Defendants must now give evidence to justify their actions. The decision of the Court of Appeal also clears the way for the University to pursue the orders for costs made against the Defendants which may run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
UML wrote:
UML wrote:It is alleged that during the PNM days in govt there was this special preferred PNM contractor at Petrotrin named Cudjoe Construction (I believe.) Apparently the contractor was hired to do some stainless steel welding in a tank for Petrotrin at approximately $30,000,000.00 and was unable to do the job. So Petrotrin brought in foreigners to do the job. After the job was completed Cudjoe Construction was still paid the $30,000,00.00
UML wrote:The DPP decides what cases are heard!
eliteauto wrote:UML wrote:The DPP decides what cases are heard!
You're being disingenuous, don't pass the buck please, understand each office holder's role and function, the DPP cannot stymie the prosecution of anyone based on whim and fancy, there is a difference between hearsay/information and evidence, essentially all the ole talk and hot air politicians blow on the podium comes to naught because they fail to bring (or they subvert) the evidence that would form a case. How many of the corruption allegations against the last Gov't has materialized into criminal cases and convictions? How many have gone the civil route instead of criminal? How much has been paid out in legal fees vs recovery of assets? Corruption is endemic to T&T's society particularly in the public sector and that has been bred and fostered by the PNM and allowed to continue by all Gov'ts we've had bar none
$11.5M bail for Piarco Airport 8Redman wrote:AS far as I am concerned...
If either party was serious about stopping corruption they would have persecuted those so suspected and accused,prosecuted them,and jail them where guilty.
Neither party did this even though promises were made on the campaign..
Yuille-Williams clearedUML wrote:just adding to the list...........
PNM giving scholarships tuh ppl with 2's
that in addition to the mystery of the process for qualifying for a scholarship.....picky head!!
and tampering with the entry requirements of UWI, COSTAATT and creation of the school for dunce...UTT
Habit7 wrote:^^^Quoting The Voice as a news source is as credible as quoting Vanilla Topping on the paternity of Dr. Rowley's family.
Habit7 wrote:Yuille-Williams clearedUML wrote:just adding to the list...........
PNM giving scholarships tuh ppl with 2's
that in addition to the mystery of the process for qualifying for a scholarship.....picky head!!
and tampering with the entry requirements of UWI, COSTAATT and creation of the school for dunce...UTT
Published: Sunday, April 19, 2015
The Sunday Guardian also understands that Yuille-Williams is expected to be cleared of any wrongdoing in the allegation that she and the administrators of the Scholarship Fund were guilty of misconduct and misbehaviour in public office.
Williams’s case was referred to the DPP in 2013 after a forensic report unearthed several anomalies in the award of scholarships under Williams.
Some of the issues highlighted were that some 225 people with no filed applications received funding of just under $11 million ($10,997,552) in aggregate over the review period; that submitted files of 1,295 applicants contained no documentation that provided any evidence of financial need or untoward socio-economic circumstances; and that 420 of the applicants who provided no evidence of financial need in their applications received funding amounting to $20.1 million in aggregate over the review period.
Even if any of the former ministers are found to be in breach of the Integrity in Public Life Act, there is no sanction. There must be evidence of at least misbehaviour in public office for any charges to be laid against alleged wrongdoers.
The last summary report published by the Integrity Commission lists at least eight investigations that have been forwarded to the DPP, the majority of which are ready to be closed or returned for further investigations.
One such case, involving allegations against former Udecott chairman Calder Hart, has already been thrown out by the DPP on the grounds that it is not a criminal matter. Hart’s matter is currently before the civil courts, as the Government is seeking to recover some $100 million from Hart.
The Sunday Guardian understands that Hart has retained local legal representation and the matter is moving through the judicial system.
http://m.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-04-18 ... ms-cleared
UML wrote:NEVER forget. Too far to go back now!!
WAS THIS REALLY THE RACKET RAIL ???
RATP --ONE OF THE COMPANIES IN THE PROJECT WAS NOT REGISTERED
UNTIL MAY 2009 BUT WAS AWARDED THE CONTRACT IN APRIL 2008
A Newspaper report dated
12 Aug 2008
stated that
WSP will act as project manager for the design, build, operate and maintain contract which the government awarded to the Trinitrain consortium of Bouygues Construction, Alstom and RATP Développement in April.
but RATP was not registered until 15 May 2009 according to public documents from the registrar of companies..
It was sold as a new rush of oil prospecting in South-West Soldado, a decade-old dream of dizzying black gold that would reduce Petrotrin’sreliance on imported crude and inject some much-needed cash into the State energy giant’s balance sheet.
Instead, there were false starts to the much-ballyhooed SW Soldado development project; a failed shipyard expedition to the United States, insider information provided to a Houston start-up and a small Mexican firm, and the theft of US$750,000 (TT$4.794 million) in public funds.
Camini Marajh, Head, Express Investigative Desk, delves into Petrotrin’s troubled and increasingly expensive bid to reactivate the SW Soldado field and the rich deals that have benefited a few individuals. This is the eighth in a series of articles.
Questions remain over the circumstances in which an illegal advanced payment was made to the company’s Mexican contractor, Maritima de Ecologia SA de CV, also known as Marecsa, and the facilitating role played by American expat Jeff Clark, for all of the parties connected to the Soldado affair.
Among them: why did Petrotrin make a payment ahead of time, in violation of its own contract agreement? Why was the board not told? Why did the company accept an almost US$2 million performance bond from an underwriter that did not meet the minimum investment rating requirements? Where did Dexter Daniel get the authority to negotiate and decide on a variation of the contract terms? Why is there no documented evidence of this material variation or agreement to prepay?
Also, why was it necessary for Petrotrin to seek legal sanction on an internal request for payment document? And having secured legal input, why did the company then fail to follow the advice of its internal lawyers and vary the terms of the contract to reflect the reported changes to the agreement? Why was a copy of the contract not included in the Daniel memorandum, seeking approval for payment of an upfront commissioning fee? And what about the contention of the VP Finance that she signed under a false premise?
Also still unclear are: who are the beneficial owners of the private bank accounts? Are the accounts still active? Where did the money go? Who are the un-named Petrotrin contacts who used general man-of-business Clark as a conduit for the repayment instructions and subsequent money transfer? Where did Clark get the authority to request and direct repayment to non-Petrotrin bank accounts?
What was it about the Clark repayment instruction that caused Maritima’s top executive Gabriel Delgado to transfer US$750K to two Port of Spain bank accounts shortly after receipt of the money, at a time when he was floundering financially and unable to make even the lease payments on the barge? What made him believe Clark’s story that Petrotrin wanted its money back when the oil company had just paid what its lawyers insist was an agreed-to mobilisation
fee? What exactly was mobilised?
What was his understanding of the arrangements that made him transfer the remaining Petrotrin funds without a single question posed to Clark and the oil company? Was he as naïve about the repayment instructions as he has let on? And if we believe his version of events, why did he transfer the money to non-Petrotrin bank accounts?
Also, if this was at all or in any way connected to a legitimate business transaction, why was one set of the money remitted into Clark’s separate company account, Sterling Marine Ltd (SML), and not the locally incorporated Maritima Trinidad business unit? Was the US$100K paid directly into Clark’s SML account payment for services rendered?
Delgado has not answered the basis of that transfer to any degree of satisfaction and has provided the stock response: “Funds were returned as per the bank accounts indicated” and “we did not question”.
His refusal to be forthright on the issue of the prepayment and subsequent transfer of funds from Houston to Port of Spain or to identify the party who put him on to the lucrative oil production deal provides an insight into how the parties operated. Petrotrin has refused to provide a proper account for the failed Soldado contract and has instead demanded that we name our sources on this investigative series.
The oil company has also refuted claims made by its Mexican contractor and naval architect, Delgado, that the American expat who lived in a leased Diego Martin townhouse for several years acted in an unofficial capacity for unnamed individuals inside of the State-run company and has publicly asserted it had “absolutely no dealings” with Jeff Clark.
Continuing Sunday Express investigations have however revealed the State energy giant has been less than honest with the public on this matter. Petrotrin’s own official documents show Clark was well-known to persons inside of the State-run oil company. He was directly involved in arranging the performance bond and expediting payment of the upfront commissioning fee of US$1.25 million to Delgado.
The evidence trail show nine days after SW Soldado projects manager Dexter Daniel secured payment approval from the vice-president Finance and E&P (exploration and production), Clark provided Petrotrin with a written testimonial to the invoice accuracy of a copy of the original Maritima-submitted invoice, dated March 26, 2012.
The handwritten note, signed by Clark on the top, right-hand corner of the single-page document on August 24, 2012, stated: “I certify this is a true and certified copy of the original.” Petrotrin insiders report the Clark-certified invoice was walked through the system and entered— as evidenced by the date stamp on the document—into the company’s computerised SAP financial system the same day, a Friday.
On August 29, 2010, three days into the working week, the so-called mobilisation money was wire-transferred through intermediary bank Citibank to Delgado’s Membersource Credit Union account in
Houston, less US$187,500 in withholding tax.
The invoice document, like all the other related Petrotrin payment documents on this matter, speaks to a “commissioning fee” and not “an advanced commissioning” or “mobilisation fee” as Petrotrin has said. The invoice document actually describes the payment as part of the agreed-to tender contract and cites the referenced contract term 2.1, which specifically talks about a single lump sum payment “when the contractor has completed commissioning and test run and Petrotrin has certified the facility for the commencement of services”.
Petrotrin has publicly maintained it approved and paid a negotiated mobilisation fee of US$1.25 million to Delgado’s privately owned marine company but failed to disclose the approved award did not include prepayment of any fee, mobilisation, commissioning or otherwise. It also failed to disclose the approved contract award did not have a mobilisation fee but a commissioning fee, which, according to the contract, was only payable after the Maritima-contracted production facility was in Trinidad and certified fit for service.
Also, as reported previously, the company ignores the fact that mobilisation and commissioning are two distinct, non-synonymous activities. The State oil company has also failed to respond to a published June 8, 2012, e-mail which identified Clark as an involved party in an internal company e-mail on expediting payment of the upfront fee to Delgado.
By Delgado’s own account, albeit a limited one, Clark was “a broker in the middle of everybody”, representing myriad interests associated with the Soldado contract, including Petrotrin, the broker on the contract Comprehensive Insurance Brokers Ltd (CIBL) and lastly, as the local agent of his own Mexican incorporated company.
Delgado said he was approached by Clark after he won the Soldado contract with an offer to secure the requisite insurance needed to satisfy the terms of the just-landed Petrotrin contract. He said Clark told him he was associated with a Port of Spain brokerage house later identified as the Neil Gosine-run CIBL. According to Delgado, “Clark was the person with the contacts in Trinidad. He was talking on behalf of individuals inside of Petrotrin. He took me to CIBL.”
Delgado’s version of events suggests that the parties knew each other before he won the contract but he declined to call names. “We did not question,” he said to repeated questions from this reporter about the identity of the key players involved. “That was never disclosed or asked,” he said, making clear he asked no questions and received no answers about the parties involved or anything unrelated to the specific contract agreement signed with Petrotrin.
Yet, he was an integral part to the illegal prepayment and subsequent repayment of two sets of Petrotrin money to private bank accounts in Trinidad, one identified as Clark’s and the other an unnamed account using Clark’s temporary business address at 9-11 Fitt Street, Woodbrook.
For someone who knows a lot about what went on behind the scenes and who the beneficiaries of the private bank accounts are, Delgado is saying very little on the matter.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests
