The CLICO Forensic Audit Report

Patrick Toppin (l) Oliver Jordan (r) CLICO Judicial Managers

One of the most discussed issues in Barbados in the six months has been the CLICO Forensic Audit Report. The Nation Newspaper has cherry picked  and published those parts which make for ‘good’ reading. BU is pleased to post the full report for ALL Barbadians to read.

Forensic Audit of CLICO International Life Insurance Ltd. (under Judicial Management): – Report as of December 5, 2011

Thanks to the BU family member who submitted the report.

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

107 Comments on “The CLICO Forensic Audit Report”

  1. To the point July 8, 2012 at 6:54 AM #

    @Amused

    I want to ask you a question and hope u can answer or research it and cite decided case(s).

    It is in reference to what caswell stated on another blog concerning the AX issue. He has stated that the Principals are not appointed to a school, but to the Ministry of Education. Suppose that he is right and that they should be appointed to the Ministry and assigned to a school and a mistake was made and atlest seven years after it has not been corrected, has Mr. Boorme got a legitimate exspecation to remain appointed or could it be amended subsequently by being published in the Official Gazette.

    Why then Father Gatherer appointed could not be subsequently published in the official Gazette to legitimize his retirement age. I am sure u know of this case that is why i am brief.

    Like

  2. balance July 8, 2012 at 6:57 AM #

    “The decision to buy/lease the jet had to be from DT, he flew on that plane from the time it was purchased.”
    FLAWED REASONING.

    Like

  3. ac July 8, 2012 at 7:17 AM #

    @Amused

    Calm down for what ! calm down for what ! as a matter of fact i am ecstatic. it is good to know of your apolitical leanings whether they be beneficial to one party or not all that matters is setting the record straight.

    Like

  4. ac July 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM #

    @balannce .
    i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.

    Like

  5. David July 8, 2012 at 9:14 AM #

    Mara Thompson was Office Manager up 2007. If anyone can shed light who took over the job please feel free to do so.

    Like

  6. balance July 8, 2012 at 11:32 AM #

    i am not going to repeat myself except to say the scenarios are completely different and mr. owen f //k up big time on the way he handled the situation and you are not going to use distracting tactics as a method of trying to mislead i know better and so does the public.”

    ypu mean although i offered you an olive branch you still accuse me of misleading. if you prefe tocontinue to be speculative even in the face of informed comment then it is not worth the while to engage you. no where can the adjective folish be ascribed to you but i am loathe to quote that’ salt and sand and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without understanding’

    Like

  7. patenham July 8, 2012 at 8:11 PM #

    @David
    Thanks for the info.

    @Amused – No smoking gun not even a peashooter
    You sound like a lawyer. Do you guys normally submit false invoices on behalf of your clients?

    Like

  8. Amused July 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM #

    @To the point | July 8, 2012 at 6:54 AM. I cannot comment on that. I have read the reports of the Waterman Commission in Barbados Today. I see that the very questions you ask me to comment on has been raised before the Commission. I have no intention of second-guessing Mr Waterman or the counsel appearing before the Commission which, with respect, are the best of the best. So, I recommend to you the (for Barbados) excellent reports being carried in Barbados Today.

    @patenham. On what basis do you conclude that the invoices were false? I see no evidence to point anyone to that conclusion and I state that wishful thinking is not evidence.

    @ac. Chile, seeing that some commenters are living in Neverland, do NOT calm down. You are right to be elated and excited – you are right. Enjoy!

    Like

  9. patenham July 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM #

    @Amused

    It is my understanding invoices that total $3.33m was submitted by Thompson And Associates for legal services rendered Clico.

    It is also my understanding that the $3.33m paid by Clico to Thompson and Associates based on the invoices for legal services was actually part gratuity payment for Leroy Parris.

    Now i am a simple man. What was the cheque for.

    Was it for legal services Or was it for Gratuity.

    Is there a possibility they were two cheques @ $3.33m each or is it that Clico still owes Thompson and Associates $3.33m for the legal fees.

    Like

  10. millertheanunnaki July 9, 2012 at 8:08 PM #

    @ patenham | July 9, 2012 at 7:48 PM |

    Don’t expect a response. This is too straightforward a question for a simple response from the joker in the amusing CLICO pack.

    Like

  11. ac July 9, 2012 at 8:14 PM #

    @balance

    whatis your problem ! the olive branch however well it might been intended was your way of saying “see mr osa was not so bad afterall he was followingbank procedure which at this point was never confirmed by OSA ! what olive branch . any way thanks but no thanks.and what informed comment based on “IF”

    Like

  12. Amused July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM #

    @patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.

    As I have said, THERE IS NO SMOKING GUN and no amount of political wishful thinking is going to generate one.

    @ac. As someone who is traditionally BLP, I will now fully support you in BLP-bashing these idiots who refuse to see that there is no smoking gun implicating the DLP or David Thompson in any ethical or legal wrongdoing. Bash away. They have asked for it.

    Like

  13. Inkwell July 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM #

    Amused,

    If you want to put reason aside and join AC in being delusional, feel free, but the only one you are convincing with that specious argument is yourself…and AC of course.

    I am disappointed in you.

    Like

  14. Amused July 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM #

    @ac. I leave it to you to respond to Inkwell on the subject of our “specious” argument. I note that the usual major political spinners on BU are keeping well away from this one, small wonder, and I believe you are I are enititled to draw our own inferences from that, even though we are, to all intents and purposes, on opposite sides. So, if you wish to move in for the kill on the subject of misappropriated cheques (not made out to the person paying them into their account) all I can say is, be my guest. It is high time some people put Barbados first and politics second.

    Like

  15. David (not BU) July 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM #

    Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |

    @patenham. You and I don’t need to know that. Thompson and Associates would have provided CLICO an itemised bill, which is subject to solicitor-client privilege, for their services. CLICO would have either questioned certain items and paid the bill, or it would have paid the bill. If, as you say, the bill for legal services was $3.3 million, given the size of CLICO and the scope of its interests and business, then a $3.3 million bill would not surprise me. If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.

    ***************************************

    you should be a lawyer. that was very creative. i would love you to give that same creative reasoning to some of the policyholders who can’t get back their money.

    let me know how that works out for you and them.

    what rubbish.

    Like

  16. Cynic July 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM #

    The company was raped – Lear Jets and million dollar legal fees (sorry “gratuities”). The auditors were negligent. The actuaries incompetent or non-existent. Assets were not matched to liabilities. Exorbitant, unapproved executive remuneration was the norm. Accounting policies were ignored. The statutory fund was not maintained. The company mispriced and mis-sold its policies. The objections of the Supervisor of Insurance were ignored. Counsel was compliant with its snout in the same trough as the directors. The EFPA’s were nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

    The connection between this company and the DLP is public knowledge.

    Exactly how much of a smoking gun does Amused need?

    Like

  17. millertheanunnaki July 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM #

    @Amused | July 10, 2012 at 7:52 AM |
    “If, on the other hand, it was in the form of a gratuity from CLICO to LP that LP asked be paid in to Thompson and Associates, I see no problems there either – that would be a matter between CLICO and LP and does not involve Thompson and Associates, other than as solicitors acting properly and ethically.”

    One notices how you eschew the issue of income tax liability on the gratuity payment. Since you are being ‘hypothetical here ( and quite rightly seeing that you were adamant in the past that the $3.33 million was in respect of a gratuity payment to Parris as alluded to in the forensic audit report) why not let us continue down this path and assume that no income tax was deducted at source i.e. by the CLICO Accounting Officer(s).
    If this is the case what would be the responsibility or duty of the Solicitors “Thompson and Associates” to their client LP that the gratuity payment credited to the solicitor/client account is subject to Income Tax thereby ensuring that the account under the solicitor’s fiduciary control is not compromised and running afoul of the Revenue Laws of Barbados?
    We should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in Law to explore this angle of the debate as you would wont to do in other aspects of the said Law.

    Like

  18. Amused July 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM #

    @Miller. No expertise in law is required here, merely a modicum of common sense, which I urge you to adopt.

    HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT NO TAX WAS PAID ON THIS SUM????? How do you know whether or not Parris or Thompson or both did not pay tax on this amount? It was not within the scope of the investigation to ascertain this and if the tax people wish to question or investigate it, that is for them. Why are you asking me these extremely silly questions the answers to which would be very apparent to anyone with even a modicum of business experience? Do you really not know the answers? Or is this some sort of political fishing trip where, as we all know, perception, rather than TRUTH, is the desired outcome? And if it is a fishing trip, I fear that the perception is not what you are wanting and trying to achieve.

    Now, enough of this. If you have questions on the taxation on this amount or concerns, take it up with the tax authorities and/or lodge a formal complaint with the DPP. There is no evidence to suggest that tax was not paid and, if it was not, I am quite sure the tax authorities will deal with this issue and if you feel the need, you can write them and share your views with them.

    But, since we are on the subject of tax and you appear to be such an authority on tax, we should be most impressed if you would use your expertise in tax to explore this angle of the debate in relation to the cheque for $75,000 that ended up in an account other than that for which it was designated.

    Like

  19. David (not BU) July 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM #

    Very Amusing….

    Like

  20. millertheanunnaki July 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM #

    @ Amused | July 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM |

    You have reacted just as expected when trapped in an intellectual corner! Resort to the use of the ad hominem technique and draw red herrings across the debating trail.
    You have indeed shown your true colours which we suspected all along but couldn’t attach a partisan tag which you vehemently denied continuously until now.
    One fails to see the relationship between the ‘suspect’ gratuity (subjected to the microscope of a forensic audit) paid to LP from the contributions of defrauded CLICO policyholders and some $75,000.00 picked from nowhere. Who was the paymaster and final recipient or beneficiary of this amount of $75,000.00 or was it $750,000.00?
    Good luck, Mi Laud! The Bajan electorate especially the CLICO policyholders would soon be having their say and final verdict as to who receive what and how much. Not Court jesters and spin doctors. You are truly an honour to your calling.
    “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
    I am sure you are familiar with the above quote from a philosopher you grudgingly admire but whose teachings you refuse to acknowledge or respect.

    Like

  21. ac July 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM #

    So tell me BLP yardfowls what is so unethical about thompson and associates being paid for services rended or even attorney client privilegeThen what do you yardflows suggest that the lawfirm do return the cheque .you guys/keep harping about a about a legtimate business deal between a client and his lawyer and looking like the dog trying tocatch its tail .

    Like

  22. ac July 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM #

    Since the BLP yardflows can,t win on the ethics and legitimacy here come the”voice of thunder” miller pounding his chest while pontificating and barelling down the avenue of “tax evasion which not even the NATION has accused the any of the parties involved. to you miller i asked”are we there yet” mr ac had told me that the BLP yardfowls would look like fools debating this issue and noticed that OSA and MIA had ittle to say about the cheque which the yardfowls keep pecking on. CLUCK! CLUCK!

    Like

  23. millertheanunnaki July 10, 2012 at 12:53 PM #

    @ ac | July 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM |
    “you guys/keep harping about a about a legitimate business deal between a client and his lawyer ”

    As said to Amused the electorate and the suffering CLICO policyholders will have the final judgment on this matter.
    The client’s case has already been eloquently pleaded in the highest court of the land: LP is an estimable gentleman who has been exceedingly instrumental in making CLICO a very well managed and profitable business conglomerate worthy of praise and highly recommended to the ordinary people as a vehicle for investing funds. He is not a leper and is deserving of our adulation and support not vile condemnation as if he is a leper to be avoided.
    Now the jury is out and a verdict will soon be delivered.

    Like

  24. patenham July 10, 2012 at 7:19 PM #

    @Amused

    My friend you have said a lot but it does not make sense. Do you really believe the nonsense you have you have written. Do you think only pure blind supporters of the DLP read the blogs. On this issue you remind me of the house jester in our parliament.

    Like

  25. David July 10, 2012 at 7:25 PM #

    Until the $3.3.million is satisfactorily explained, it must be labelled a suspicious transaction. It is instructive the recent comment by outgoing Central Bank of Trinidad

    Outgoing Central Bank Governor says CLICO was ‘a massive fraud on the people’

    By CMC – Monday, July 9th, 2012.

    PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, July 9, CMC – Outgoing Central Bank Governor Ewart Williams has described the financial debacle that engulfed the Colonial Life Insurance Company (CLICO) as “a massive fraud on the people” and that the bank has taken action “to charge” certain players with fraud.

    In an interview published in the Express newspaper, Williams, who demits office on July 16, said that “we are taking the position that CLICO was a massive fraud on the public and that’s our position”.

    The Trinidad and Tobago government signed a shareholders’ agreement on June 12, 2009 with CLICO following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between government and CL Financial, CLICLO’s parent company on January 30, 2009.

    http://www.antiguaobserver.com/?p=77642

    Like

  26. Observing (and inquiring) July 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM #

    looka life miller.

    Only tonight I repeated thatexact same phrase to a colleague “LP is an estimable gentleman ….”

    The BLP only need to replay that over and over again this election cycle. 25,000 people are not to be take lightly anywhere, in any circumstance, in any condition.

    Like

  27. winston Black June 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM #

    the 3.3 million went back to the CEO from the lawyer. its time that policy holders file a class action suit against the directors CEO president vice president, L D, all of the politicians and lawyers knew what was going on with that company and withdrew all of their monies, the regulators F.S.C, supervisor of insurance, the government and the auditors are liable. the minister of finance allowed it to file fraudulent annual reports on its operations in Trinidad and not Barbados, the insurance industry needs cleaning up in that they should submit quarterly reports along with a recent bank statement for the corresponding period. The Financial Service Commission have to take some blame too for letting it withdrawn funds from its statutory liability fund that is require under the law to purchase land in Miami without its approval or that of the central bank

    Like

  28. nackte February 21, 2014 at 7:47 AM #

    Why Thu users can pay to you directly, so you remember each customer next time frauen nackt they come
    back to your room. Try to take quick notes after each chat, so you are
    likely to make more money by talking, not typing.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Owen Arthur Drops CLICO Bomb at West Terrace | Barbados Underground - February 20, 2013

    […] by the Deloitte’s CLICO Forensic Report is the fact a 3.3 million dollar invoice was generated by CLICO and eventually made its way into […]

    Like

  2. CLICO: Is and Therefore | Barbados Underground - July 3, 2013

    […] the integrity of the financials of any company regulated under the Act. The realisation that the Deloitte CLICO Forensic Report established that there is a shortfall in the assets of CLICO of about 300 million dollars places […]

    Like

  3. Leroy Parris and the $3.333 Million Payment | Barbados Underground - February 3, 2015

    […] taxes and relevant laws have been honoured. Does Parris and his lawyers dispute the findings of Deloitte Judicial Forensic Report on the […]

    Like

  4. Time to Come Clean Mara Thompson | Barbados Underground - February 4, 2015

    […] leaked Deloittes CLICO Judicial report in 2007 revealed troubling information about a 3 million dollar payment to Thompson & […]

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,456 other followers