Attorney insists “no money was stolen”

Embattled attorney Ernest Winston Jackman on Friday maintained that the evidence, facts and issues raised in his theft and money laundering trial showed “that no money was stolen”.

In his closing address to the jury hearing the evidence in his case, Jackman said there “was an agreement between the parties in relation to the money I was to pay and pay interest on”.

Jackman is accused of stealing $678 414.75 from HEJ Limited between June 23, 2006 and March 5, 2007, as well as allegedly engaging in money laundering by disposing of the sum between June 23, 2006 and October 18, 2011.

John Huggins, the complainant in the case, is the principal shareholder and managing director for HEJ Limited.

“You can have situations in life where things don’t go according to plan . . . but you can make arrangements to deal with those things . . . and that was what was done between myself and Mr Huggins,” Jackman said in his closing arguments.

He again claimed that he had paid the complainant $390 000 but insisted that the “fact that I did not have the full amount to pay . . . Mr Huggins at that instant no longer becomes a factor or is of any importance or consequence because there were negotiations on it and an agreement”.

On the charge of money laundering, the accused lawyer stated the charge “cannot be upheld or proven against me” on the basis that the “transaction occurred in 2006 and not 2011”.

“There were no transactions or dealings with John Huggins’ money in 2011, there were in 2006 . . . ,” he added.

Jackman, who represented himself in the trial, told the jurors that HEJ said to give the $678 414. 75 but “the agreement changed”, saying he was then asked to pay interest on that money.

“ . . . . Because that was done, because that money was supposed to pay interest on, it cannot be stolen,” he further submitted.

He added that the burden of proof was on the prosecution – which is represented by Principal Crown Counsel Krystal Delaney – to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he stole the sum of money from HEJ.

“They have to prove that . . . . I have presented to you enough to show that that is not the case,” he added.

Justice Pamela Beckles who is presiding over the trial in the No. 5 Supreme Court will on Tuesday give her summation of the case before handing it over to the jurors for deliberations and a verdict.