Attorney asks court to unfreeze accounts

AN injunction freezing the account of attorney Varun Debideen remains in place until the end of November when a High Court judge will decide if it should be set aside.

Debideen has asked Justice Frank Seepersad to discharge the freezing order he imposed on his account on November 1.

Seepersad has ordered submissions on Debideen’s application and said he will rule on November 28.

Advanced Hose and Marketing Ltd sought the injunction, claiming it transferred $7 million to a contractor for a potential construction project.

As it seeks to recover its $7 million from contractor Cordell Philbert, the company first applied for disclosure of banking information which allegedly showed Philbert transferred $6 million to Debideen’s Scotiabank account and additional sums, of $182,000, $20,000, $122,650, $100,000, $100,000 and $100,000, to another of the eight defendants named in the action.

The freezing injunction application named Philbert – who received the $7 million – RBC Royal Bank TT, Brad Persad, Joash Ramjattan, Mitoonlal Persad, Debideen, Za Limity Engineering Consultancy and Scotiabank TT as the eight defendants.

Scotiabank is Debideen’s banker.

The application alleged, “The first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents have colluded with the intention of defrauding the applicant and/or intend to and/or have misappropriated the transferred sum and/or placed the transferred sum beyond the reach of the applicant.”

The third, fourth and fifth respondents, the application said, are Philbert’s business associates.

After receiving the disclosure of the banking information, Advanced Hose then applied for the injunction to freeze Debideen’s account.

The freezing order prevents Debideen from removing, disposing of, or diminishing the value of his assets up to the value of $6 million.

The court’s order only allows Debideen to remove any unencumbered assets outside the $6 million figure and also provides him with a $ 10,000-a-week spending allowance for ordinary living expenses and legal advice and representation.

However, on Wednesday, the judge stayed those parts of his order which called on Debideen to give information to Advanced Hose’s attorneys of all his assets in TT exceeding $1 million, whether in his name or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details.

In asking for the variation, Debideen’s attorney Tom Richards, KC, said it was “highly intrusive.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Richards objected to an adjournment but further argued the injunction application had not been properly made.

He described the freezing order as a “nuclear weapon of an order” against his client. He also said an application had been filed by his client to have the freezing order discharged.

In asking for time to respond to it, Advanced Hose’s lead attorney, Jagdeo Singh said his client has been able to “draw a straight line” showing the funds went from his client’s account to Philbert and then to Debideen.

“It calls for some level of explanation,” he said, adding that it was prima facie evidence of fraud and of Debideen “inserting himself in the commission of two frauds; on the claimant and a conspiracy to defraud the bank.”

Debideen has explained that one of the defendants - his client - had previously retained him in a separate matter and the money paid into his account represented a loan to his client to repay a $24 million judgment debt.

However, Singh said there was evidence that an attempt had been made to deposit money into the account of the judgment creditor but it was flagged by the bank

He questioned if Debideen engaged in due diligence to find out where the money came from. Singh also alleged that the “loan” document “screams sham from the top of the mountain.”

Philbert’s attorney Keera Bazey also asked for time to respond to Debideen’s application, saying her client had not seen it and also wanted to see the circumstances advanced on the execution of the alleged loan agreement.

Richards maintained, however, that there was no pleaded allegation or evidence against his client, an attorney, accusing Singh of making a new claim buttressed with evidence from the bar table.

“The allegation of wrongdoing is unsustainable. He needs a good arguable case to continue the freezing application…There is no allegation that he breached any laws.”

Richards also said the court can make no inferences but must be sure, on the evidence, there was a real risk that Debideen might dispose of his assets.

“There is no evidence he would seek to put his assets out of the court’s reach or that there is a risk of doing so.

“We say that an injunction will not be just and equitable.”

Richards maintained that a freezing order against an attorney was “an extraordinary, nuclear step” which could have a huge impact on his client’s professional reputation.

All the other defendants were represented at Wednesday’s hearing.