Coke allies on lockdown
Published:Friday | August 6, 2010 | 12:00 AM
Arthur Hall, Senior Staff Reporter
ONE OF the local attorneys slated to represent colleagues of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke and three companies in which the alleged drug lord is a shareholder is crying foul as the Jamaican authorities move to seize their assets.
Attorney-at-law Paul Beswick says the Government is trying to seize the assets without giving the persons a fair chance to defend themselves.
But the attorney leading the case for the Asset Recovery Agency, Michael Hylton, says that is not correct.
"I have no intention of subjecting myself to the possibility of adverse proceedings because of my representation of parties against a government that is willing to abuse the rights of its citizens by denying them the ability to obtain counsel," Beswick told The Gleaner yesterday.
He said he has had to reject an offer to represent the persons and entities linked to Coke.
The Asset Recovery Agency has gone to court to freeze the assets of Coke, his mother Patricia Halliburton, his alleged girlfriend, Stephanie Gayle, businessman Justin O'Gilvie, and others reportedly linked to the former west Kingston strongman.
The assets of three companies in which Coke is listed as a shareholder, Incomparable Enterprise, Bulls Eye Security and Presidential Click, have also been frozen as the Government attempts to use the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) to seize the assets.
Under Section 33 of the POCA, a judge can allow Coke and the others access to their accounts for "reasonable living expenses and reasonable legal expenses", except for the legal bills related to attempts to seize the assets.
Main concern
This is the main concern for Beswick, who says the rights of the accused are being trampled on as, under POCA, any attorney who represents them might be exposed to criminal and/or civil proceedings.
But Hylton, the lead attorney for the Asset Recovery Agency, says there is no basis for the concern as the law specifically allows the payment of legal fees in such matters.
Hylton pointed to Section 93 of POCA, which states that an attorney shall not be taken to engage in money laundering to the extent that he receives bona fide fees for legal representation.
No word on waiver
Beswick was approached to represent O'Gilvie, his wife, Maxine, and two of the companies, but he noted that under POCA, even the payment to attorneys for legal fees could be considered dealing in the property of the defendants.
He said a request was made to Minister of Finance Audley Shaw for a waiver, but so far there is no indication that this has been granted.
"I note that the companies (Incomparable Enterprise and Bulls Eye Security) are legitimate organisations, even doing work for the Government and, irrespective of their ownership, they have a right to be protected," argued Beswick.
"The law does not matter if the person is guilty or not; it tramples on their rights and is a result of us bending over to persons to the north of us," added Beswick.
He noted that Coke could be denied proper legal representation locally despite not being named as a person of interest for any crime by the local police.
"... The fate of the parties and their assets will, therefore, be in the hands only of their prosecutors and the court," lamented the defence counsel.
The police announced a freeze on Coke's assets immediately after he waived his right to challenge his extradition.
The parties were slated to return to court yesterday, but lawyers representing the defendants were not present.
The court has placed a freeze on all the assets of the defendants, including those assets not yet identified.