|
Negotiating out of fraud
Morris Cargill
At the moment, there are two important cases of alleged fraud before the courts. I write, "alleged fraud" because, of course, we can come to no conclusions until the decisions of the courts are handed down. Both these cases involve attorneys-at-law.
What puzzles me greatly, however, is that in one case, the date of trial was adjusted so that, in the words of one lawyer for the defence, "negotiations could take place."
Fraud is a criminal, not a civil offence and therefore I cannot understand what those negotiations can be. One ought not to be allowed to negotiate out of a criminal offence. It is possible, of course, for someone accused of fraud to have talks with the complainant concerning some form of restitution and while this might be taken into account by a judge in passing sentence, it cannot exonerate the accused.
I know that quite recently, there have been many cases of fraud by employees in the financial sector and it is regrettable that in nearly every case the prosecution has been withdrawn when the accused has made restitution in part or in whole. Many banks were glad to withdraw prosecution when money was repaid to them. One might call this the victory of greed over justice.
Indeed, in recent times, there has been far too much "negotiation" out of fraud. When poorer people get into trouble with the law, they are clobbered, but the general feeling in Jamaica at present is that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. Far too often people who are rich or socially prominent and who can afford armies of expensive lawyers are able to wriggle out of trouble. I am not surprised that poorer people are losing confidence in our legal system.
Speaking generally it is especially important in the case of lawyers that they should not be allowed to wriggle. Even though a lawyer may be able to repay a client in part or in whole for money which he has robbed from him he should still be struck off the rolls. There have been too many cases recently of lawyers who have played fast and loose with clients' money who still miraculously seem to be able to remain in practice.
To return now to the two cases which I mentioned earlier, I shall be watching them with great interest. You'll notice that I have mentioned no names. But if I find that attorneys involved have managed to negotiate themselves out of trouble I shall mention some names very loudly indeed.
Intouch
As a result of the confusion concerning the Cable and Wireless "gift" of Intouch one executive has been fired and another has resigned. It seems to me that the wrong people have suffered. I cannot help feeling that it is the top executives whose butts hould have been kicked, and for the following reasons.
First, the new system should not have been imposed upon subscribers without first asking their permission. Secondly, the lack of proper organisation was lamentable. A solid wall of answering machines, of recorded voices and busy signals was erected between the subscribers and the complaints department. Thirdly, the whole scheme, presented as a free gift, was a shattering example of cynicism and hypocrisy.
Incidentally, the recent heavy rains put my telephone out of order. Indeed my phone usually goes out of order whenever it rains heavily and I don't know why Cable and Wireless can't provide waterproof telephones.
Morris Cargill is The Gleaner's senior columnist and has been writing for more than forty-five years.
|
|
