Ralph Gonsalves and the DPP mess up the David Ames situation (10/11/2016)
An alarm went up, the controversial foreign investor/hotelier, Davis Ames, and man behind the Buccament Bay Resort enterprise, run away with over seven million dollars of monies that was alleged to have been earmarked to pay into the St Vincent and the Grenadines treasury as taxes and into the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) on behalf of the workers who are employed by that business enterprise.
Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, the government’s chief decision maker of St Vincent and the Grenadines, who is an alleged lawyer, is whimpering like a baby over the alleged stolen money, as if all is lost. So what! David Ames stole several million dollars from a company of which he is one of the chief investors and the CEO and he absconded with the money. I have not seen the big deal and how this alleged theft of company money has affected the government and people of St Vincent and the Grenadines. Apart from the fact that a crime was committed.
Situations such as these become a problem when the people who are placed as managers of the country’s resources (the government) and the watchdogs of those people (the parliamentary opposition) are void of rational thoughts and readily available solutions.
Now there is a warrant out for David Ames for tax evasion and for theft. I will have to say the director of public prosecution (DPP) has got to be a jackass to charge David Ames with theft. Who did David Ames steal from, who filed a report of theft against Mr Ames and who is the virtual complainant in this case? Tax evasion, yes, but to charge him with the offence of theft is highly idiotic. I will explain further later.
Now the fact that David Ames left St Vincent and the Grenadines without fulfilling his company’s financial obligation to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines in the form of paying the taxes his company owed to the government, as well as his company’s financial responsibility to the NIS, is indeed an offence. Because he, as the company’s legal representative (not counsel), failed to ensure the company’s financial obligation to the government was met.
I will say this, David Ames is only liable to St Vincent and the Grenadines to answer criminal charges, David Ames is not indebted to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadine for the money that was not paid. We must never forget that the Buccament Bay Resort is a corporation or limited liability company and, as such, that company has an independent existence apart from its owners, managers and investors. The monies were stolen not from the government but from the company, and therefore the company is still indebted to the government and the NIS.
The truth is David Aimes is liable to his company for the money he stole, not to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines. It is only the company that can bring charges of theft against David Ames. Therefore the company has to write the stolen monies off as a lost, but the money that was stolen, even if it was earmarked to take care of the company’s financial obligations to the government and the NIS, has nothing to do with the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
As far as the government is concerned, the Buccament Bay Resort still owes the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines monies owed as tax, as well as the National Insurance scheme monies owed to it as workers’ contributions. David Ames’ absence and his theft of the company’s money do not change the colour of water or the price of eggs.
According to the charges laid before the magistrate, the director of public prosecution claimed that between December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2012, David Ames stole approximately four million dollars, the property of the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines. David Ames never stole any money from the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines; however, he failed to pay the said monies into the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ treasury and to the NIS monies owing as funds collected from workers on behalf of the NIS.
David Ames broke the laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines when he failed to pay to the company’s two creditors monies owing to them as was his responsibility and as stipulated in the law.
To charge David Ames with theft of monies of St Vincent and the Grenadines is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Do the director of public prosecution and his team understand or know what the legal definition of theft is? Do they know the conditions that must be present to constitute the offence of theft? What David Ames did does not amount to theft.
What David Ames did was to fail to pay, on behalf of his company, money owed to the government in taxes, which amounts to tax evasion; however, by not paying workers’ deductions into the NIS and keeping said monies for himself is embezzlement. David Ames did not embezzle the monies from the NIS or the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines, but he did so from the company he is part owner and CEO of.
Although embezzlement is a form of theft, legally it is not theft; in the same manner burglary is a form of theft but legally burglary is not theft. The manner in which the theft was committed changes the classification of the offence into embezzlement.
David Ames’ actions do not automatically take away or relieve the company of its financial obligations (taxes) to the government or its financial obligation to the NIS. The company has to take David Ames’ dishonesty as a company financial loss and tabulate that loss as a part of its yearly deficits. However, the David Ames’ dishonesty or misappropriation of his company’s money does not cancel the company’s financial obligation to its creditors. It is incumbent on the government to begin actions to recover monies owed to it as taxes as well as monies owed to the NIS in the form of workers’ contributions from the Buccament Bay Resort not from David Ames.
I will say, if the sum owed to both the government and the NIS is more than the assets of the Buccament Resort, then the government has an obligation to the people, to take legal actions to acquire that enterprise as payment for the debt owed.
Come on, DPP Collin Williams, you should be smarter than that; come on, Judith Jones Morgan, you have been attorney general for almost 17 years, why don’t you do your jobs. I expected more from both of you, because you went to an accredited law school, and passed the bar. I do not have the same expectation of Ralph E. Gonsalves, who did not go to a law school, but was allowed to take the bar exam and practice law within the Commonwealth, because of a Commonwealth prerequisite.
Said monies for oneself is embezzlement, although embezzlement is a form of theft, legally it is not theft; in the same manner burglary is a form of theft but legally burglary is not theft.
Situations such as these become a problem when the people who are placed as managers of the country’s resources (the government) and the watchdogs of those people (the parliamentary opposition) are void of rational thoughts and readily available solutions.
Now there is a warrant out for David Ames for tax evasion and for theft. I will have to say the director of public prosecution (DPP) has got to be a jackass to charge David Ames with theft. Who did David Ames steal from, who filed a report of theft against Mr Ames and who is the virtual complainant in this case? Tax evasion, yes, but to charge him with the offence of theft is highly idiotic. I will explain further later.
Now the fact that David Ames left St Vincent and the Grenadines without fulfilling his company’s financial obligation to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines in the form of paying the taxes his company owed to the government, as well as his company’s financial responsibility to the NIS, is indeed an offence. Because he, as the company’s legal representative (not counsel), failed to ensure the company’s financial obligation to the government was met.
I will say this, David Ames is only liable to St Vincent and the Grenadines to answer criminal charges, David Ames is not indebted to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadine for the money that was not paid. We must never forget that the Buccament Bay Resort is a corporation or limited liability company and, as such, that company has an independent existence apart from its owners, managers and investors. The monies were stolen not from the government but from the company, and therefore the company is still indebted to the government and the NIS.
The truth is David Aimes is liable to his company for the money he stole, not to the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines. It is only the company that can bring charges of theft against David Ames. Therefore the company has to write the stolen monies off as a lost, but the money that was stolen, even if it was earmarked to take care of the company’s financial obligations to the government and the NIS, has nothing to do with the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines.
As far as the government is concerned, the Buccament Bay Resort still owes the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines monies owed as tax, as well as the National Insurance scheme monies owed to it as workers’ contributions. David Ames’ absence and his theft of the company’s money do not change the colour of water or the price of eggs.
According to the charges laid before the magistrate, the director of public prosecution claimed that between December 31, 2011, and December 31, 2012, David Ames stole approximately four million dollars, the property of the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines. David Ames never stole any money from the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines; however, he failed to pay the said monies into the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ treasury and to the NIS monies owing as funds collected from workers on behalf of the NIS.
David Ames broke the laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines when he failed to pay to the company’s two creditors monies owing to them as was his responsibility and as stipulated in the law.
To charge David Ames with theft of monies of St Vincent and the Grenadines is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Do the director of public prosecution and his team understand or know what the legal definition of theft is? Do they know the conditions that must be present to constitute the offence of theft? What David Ames did does not amount to theft.
What David Ames did was to fail to pay, on behalf of his company, money owed to the government in taxes, which amounts to tax evasion; however, by not paying workers’ deductions into the NIS and keeping said monies for himself is embezzlement. David Ames did not embezzle the monies from the NIS or the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines, but he did so from the company he is part owner and CEO of.
Although embezzlement is a form of theft, legally it is not theft; in the same manner burglary is a form of theft but legally burglary is not theft. The manner in which the theft was committed changes the classification of the offence into embezzlement.
David Ames’ actions do not automatically take away or relieve the company of its financial obligations (taxes) to the government or its financial obligation to the NIS. The company has to take David Ames’ dishonesty as a company financial loss and tabulate that loss as a part of its yearly deficits. However, the David Ames’ dishonesty or misappropriation of his company’s money does not cancel the company’s financial obligation to its creditors. It is incumbent on the government to begin actions to recover monies owed to it as taxes as well as monies owed to the NIS in the form of workers’ contributions from the Buccament Bay Resort not from David Ames.
I will say, if the sum owed to both the government and the NIS is more than the assets of the Buccament Resort, then the government has an obligation to the people, to take legal actions to acquire that enterprise as payment for the debt owed.
Come on, DPP Collin Williams, you should be smarter than that; come on, Judith Jones Morgan, you have been attorney general for almost 17 years, why don’t you do your jobs. I expected more from both of you, because you went to an accredited law school, and passed the bar. I do not have the same expectation of Ralph E. Gonsalves, who did not go to a law school, but was allowed to take the bar exam and practice law within the Commonwealth, because of a Commonwealth prerequisite.
Said monies for oneself is embezzlement, although embezzlement is a form of theft, legally it is not theft; in the same manner burglary is a form of theft but legally burglary is not theft.
Comments
Post a Comment