CBL to Testify on IB’s 5-yr Regulation Claim

3
1484

Following International Bank’s (IBank) contention that it took the decision to destroy two of several checks belonging to co-defendant Varney Sherman due to a Central of Bank of

Liberia (CBL) regulation, the CBL will appear at Criminal Court ‘C’ today to testify about the credibility of that statement.

CBL is also expected to explain whether or not IBank’s contention is part of the CBL’s regulation.

CBL’s appearance is based on a request by state lawyers to have the bank explain its regulations for commercial banks on the storage of customers’ processed checks.
International Bank had earlier testified that the regulation gives it authority to destroy any of its customers’ banking information, including checks processed and stored, after five years.

Co-defendant Sherman’s checks are dated June 25 and August 31, 2010, in the amount of US$50,000 and US$200,000 respectively.
IBank said due to that regulation they were able to destroy the two checks, although several other checks from the same period (June and August 2010) processed for Sherman have been turned over to the prosecution.

The prosecution claimed that IBank, through Sherman’s account, made the two check payments to co-defendant Richard Tolbert, former National Investment Commission chairman, to support the  campaign activities of the ruling Unity Party (UP), where Sherman served as chairman.

It is alleged that the payment was intended for the passage of Public Procurement Concession Commission (PPCC) Act that was before the legislature to award Wologizi Mountain, in Lofa County, to Sable Mining, a UK based mining company, without the company going through any competitive bidding process, according to state lawyers.

Authors

3 COMMENTS

  1. If there is such a “LAW” in Liberia; that requires FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS to keep RECORDS, for a specified period; let the COURT make it known. Please let the Liberian Public know, what are the consequences/punishment for not keeping such record. What/Where is the Law?

  2. If even regulations require banks to retain checks up to five years after which banks have the option to destroy them, I still do not understand why would IB destroy only those two checks and leave the rest intact. There is something insidious about how the bank is handling this; the selective destruction of these checks raised eyebrows. Either destroy all checks during the period in question or don’t.

    From the onset, the defendant has fought to prevent his bank records to be subpoenaed by the court, which he has every right to do. This was an alert to the bank that it is likely those documents could be subpoenaed and therefore start saving/finding them. To the bank defense, it was under no obligation to keep those checks passed the required time. Thant’s correct, but why only the two checks in question are destroyed? Why not the whole slew of checks? Why wait until now when you could have told the court then?

    • J; like it or not, it’s the Law(s) that matter here. IB, have an option, to keep what/ whichever out dated RECORD(S) is of interest. The same applies to you and me. The BANK have no LEGAL obligations…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here