Loan fee under scrutiny

A $2.5-million withdrawal from a Sagicor Bank customer’s account, recorded as a “cash withdrawal loan fee”, came under scrutiny yesterday as a bank witness testified that loan fees should instead be transferred to designated internal accounts.

Prosecutors in the Sagicor multi-million-dollar fraud case allege that Tishan Samuels, a former client care officer at Sagicor Bank, caused the money to be withdrawn from a customer’s local savings account on September 30, 2022, under the pretence that the transaction was authorised and the funds were intended to cover loan fees.

However, when questioned by Samuels’ attorney, Rita Allen Brown, about the transaction recorded on the loan data sheet as a cash withdrawal for loan fees, the credit administration officer said he was uncertain about its purpose.

“I can see the narration; however, I do not agree, as all loan fees are to be transferred to appropriate internal accounts, so with that in mind, I don’t know what the withdrawal is for,” he testified.

The witness maintained that loan fees should be transferred to the appropriate internal accounts and that he could not determine the purpose of the withdrawal from the transaction narration alone.

The evidence was heard during the trial of Samuels, former Sagicor Bank branch manager Trecia Moulton, her sister Alysia Moulton White, a former vice-president of Sagicor Life, and former personal banking officer Malika McLeod. The four are facing a 22-count indictment, including charges of obtaining money by false pretences, credit by fraud, acquiring and engaging in criminal property, and conspiracy to defraud, in connection with an alleged $65-million scheme involving seven ghost accounts.

During cross-examination, Brown asked whether loan data sheets were usually prepared in branches. The witness answered, “Yes”, and agreed that they were “generally” not prepared by tellers.

Asked whether he could identify who had prepared the document, he referred to the authorised officer section and identified his supervisor in 2022, confirming that she had authorised the loan data sheet.

However, he acknowledged that the fields marked “input by”, “authorised by” and the date of authorisation were blank.

Asked whether the document showed that Samuels had prepared it, the witness agreed that there was no evidence of that.

He clarified, however, that while the input section was blank on the bank page, the front page bore a stamp identifying the person who had entered the data. The witness recognised the stamp as belonging to another employee, whom he identified.

He said he remembered the employee to whom the stamp belonged, although her name was not printed beside it, because a logbook familiar to him recorded all the stamps and the employees to whom they were assigned.

Asked whether the employee was still with the company, he answered yes, but noted that she was no longer in his department.

“She was the one who authorised the loan data sheet in your hand, but you are here giving evidence on it,” Brown said, to which the witness replied, “Correct”.

The witness was also questioned about loan fees and the role of tellers in loan transactions.

He had testified that a customer applying for a loan could be charged a loan commitment fee and stamp duty. Under cross-examination, however, he agreed that tellers had no role in calculating those charges.

He explained that loan servicing accounts were generally opened at branches, although an existing account could be used for a subsequent loan. Such accounts did not necessarily have a zero balance before a loan was disbursed, as funds could be credited in advance to cover associated fees.

Asked whether a customer with a savings account could transfer money into a loan servicing account, the witness said funds could be moved but that he was unsure whether customers could make the transfers themselves or whether they had to be done by a personal banker.

The witness acknowledged that his teller training was basic and did not cover transactions in depth. However, he maintained that he could explain how loan-related fees were supposed to be collected.

Brown also questioned him about a $129-million loan issued in the name of the same customer from whose account the $2.5 million was withdrawn, including whether he had seen evidence that the funds went to other accounts.

The witness confirmed that the loan proceeds had been credited to a loan servicing account and that portions were subsequently transferred to the customer’s prime savings account.

He identified two substantial transactions, one of approximately $14.464 million and another of $111 million, as the major transactions that stood out.

The witness said he had reviewed the bank’s T24 system after the police requested information on loans issued to the customer between January and November 2022. However, he could not recall the exact date of the search or say whether it formed part of the loan process.

He also clarified that other transactions on the customer’s loan servicing account were not transfers but appeared to be point-of-sale transactions. One was a payment of $23,624.63 at a supermarket on September 8, 2022.

The witness was also cross-examined by attorney Tyra McIntosh, who was holding for Kemar Robinson, representing Moulton.

The witness acknowledged that he had testified to speaking with Moulton several times by telephone but had not explicitly mentioned those conversations in his statement. He also accepted that the information would be relevant.

However, he rejected the suggestion that he had never spoken to her by telephone.

He further testified that, to his knowledge, a $129-million loan would require approval from the credit risk department at Sagicor’s head office on Dominica Drive before being sent to the centralised collateral and security department.

However, he acknowledged that he had no documents confirming whether approval had been granted. Based on the bank’s usual process, he said he expected that it would have been approved.

He also agreed that authorising a loan data sheet was different from approving a loan.

The court also heard that the bank’s security team had made the witness aware of the matter around October 2025. He said he was approached to prepare a statement around May or June 2026, and that his statement was dated June 5, 2026.

The witness said he was just being made aware that he was contacted five months after the trial and that he gave his statement almost a year after the trial started.

The prosecution alleges that the four accused were involved in a scheme involving approximately $65 million and seven ghost accounts. The allegations have not been proven.

The trial is scheduled to continue today in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court before Parish Judge Maxine Ellis.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com