JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Friday, July 25, 2025

Cop in deal to return DSS $$ recorded

by

Mark Bassant
1761 days ago
20200929
Police officers outside DSS in La Horquetta during a raid on the premises last Wednesday.

Police officers outside DSS in La Horquetta during a raid on the premises last Wednesday.

SHIRLEY BAHADUR

Lead Ed­i­tor, In­ves­tiga­tive Desk

Drug Sou Sou of­fi­cials have record­ings of at least two con­ver­sa­tions with a high-rank­ing po­lice of­fi­cer in which a deal was bro­kered to se­cure the re­turn of some $92 mil­lion that was seized by the po­lice, mi­nus $18 mil­lion that was paid as hush mon­ey to the of­fi­cers who or­gan­ised mon­ey’s re­turn.

The DSS source said in cru­cial tele­phone record­ings Guardian Me­dia were in­formed about, DSS per­son­nel told the high-rank­ing of­fi­cer, “that there was a large sum of mon­ey not record­ed in the re­ceipts and the per­son in­formed the po­lice of­fi­cer there was ac­tu­al­ly $92 mil­lion.”

There was a sec­ond tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion, the DSS source said, in which the high-rank­ing of­fi­cer struck a deal to en­sure that $74 mil­lion was re­turned and the oth­er $18m was to be split be­tween law en­force­ment per­son­nel in­volved in the DSS op­er­a­tion and oth­ers they co-opt­ed to re­trieve the seized mon­ey.

Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice Gary Grif­fith said af­ter speak­ing with sev­er­al in­ter­nal sources of his own, he was now con­vinced that the sum he was in­formed about up to mid­night on that Tues­day was close to $22m but not­ed he felt that was nev­er the fi­nal amount. He even be­lieves that he might have been mis­led by of­fi­cers in­volved in the act.

The $22m fig­ure was giv­en to him by of­fi­cers at­tached to SORT, who lat­er left the La Hor­quet­ta Po­lice Sta­tion with Fi­nan­cial In­ves­ti­ga­tions Branch (FIB) of­fi­cers, while North­ern Di­vi­sion of­fi­cers re­mained at the sta­tion to con­tin­ue the count.

Grif­fith said he was al­so ques­tion­ing the count­ing of that quan­ti­ty of mon­ey in such a short space of time be­tween 8.30 pm and mid­night. To him, there was some­thing amiss about this process.

Yes­ter­day, Grif­fith said he was con­vinced there was far more mon­ey tak­en to the sta­tion than what was ini­tial­ly re­port­ed to the me­dia.

“Based on in­for­ma­tion com­ing to hand and my in­tel­li­gence sources, it can­not be con­firmed that is was $22,157,000 mil­lion as claimed by the of­fi­cers. It is vir­tu­al­ly im­pos­si­ble for us to ver­i­fy that at this time,” Grif­fith said.

He said three par­al­lel in­ves­ti­ga­tions are now tak­ing place in­to the mat­ter, which in­clud­ed, “the $22 mil­lion via the source of funds, tax­es et cetera, the of­fi­cers who re­turned the funds and the of­fi­cer who put the en­ve­lope in his pock­et.”

While the po­lice are con­tin­u­ing their probe, the T&T De­fence Force (TTDF) fi­nal­ly broke its si­lence yes­ter­day, two days af­ter a Sun­day Guardian ex­clu­sive sto­ry fin­gered mem­bers of the TTDF as be­ing in­volved in the DSS op­er­a­tions and help­ing to trans­port the mon­ey to a house in Tal­paro and then to a for­ti­fied state lo­ca­tion for safe­keep­ing.

The TTDF ac­knowl­edged that they were “ful­ly co-op­er­at­ing with the TTPS in the DSS in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

A re­lease al­so said, “The TTDF has launched an in­ter­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the pos­si­ble in­volve­ment and al­leged mis­con­duct of De­fence Force mem­bers.”

The Sun­day Guardian had sent sev­er­al ques­tions to var­i­ous TTDF com­mu­ni­ca­tions per­son­nel, in­clud­ing PRO Lieu­tenant Sheron Man­swell, ask­ing spe­cif­ic ques­tions.

The TTDF’s re­sponse yes­ter­day was rather gen­er­al and they steered clear of an­swer­ing spe­cif­ic ques­tions Guardian Me­dia had posed to them.

LATT wants probe in­to war­rant

Mean­while, the Law As­so­ci­a­tion of Trinidad and To­ba­go (LATT) has urged the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice to al­so open an­oth­er in­ves­ti­ga­tion or in­clude, as part of his on­go­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion, whether there was a le­gal re­quire­ment to ob­tain a war­rant be­fore the search on the DSS was ini­ti­at­ed.

In a me­dia re­lease yes­ter­day, LATT said a war­rant ob­tained af­ter a search has start­ed does not le­galise what has al­ready oc­curred.

LATT added, “The pri­va­cy of a cit­i­zen’s premis­es is pro­tect­ed by the Con­sti­tu­tion and ought on­ly to be vi­o­lat­ed when car­ried out strict­ly in ac­cor­dance with the law. The fail­ure to ob­tain a war­rant when re­quired, and the fail­ure to dis­close it when ob­tained, vi­o­lates the Con­sti­tu­tion, on the one hand, and en­gen­ders dis­trust, on the oth­er. As things stand, it re­mains un­clear what of­fence the of­fi­cers lead­ing this raid on pri­vate premis­es sus­pect­ed was be­ing or had been com­mit­ted and what were the con­sid­er­a­tions that led to the re­turn of cash seized.”

LATT al­so sup­port­ed Grif­fith’s stance to in­ves­ti­gate the re­turn of the mon­ey from the DSS raid and al­so urged him to do a thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the of­fi­cer, “seem­ing­ly stuff­ing cash in­to his ap­par­el.”

“The Com­mis­sion­er has made the state­ment that the in­di­vid­ual is a mem­ber of the De­fence Force and not the Po­lice Ser­vice. Whether that is or is not the case, the Com­mis­sion­er ought not to be­labour the point lest it ap­pear that he is shirk­ing re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for the con­duct of an in­di­vid­ual car­ry­ing out a search as part of a unit un­der his com­mand,” LATT said.

They al­so ap­pealed to Grif­fith to ad­dress con­cerns high­light­ed in video record­ings of the raid­ing unit al­leged­ly phys­i­cal­ly abus­ing oc­cu­pants dur­ing the search of the premis­es.

LATT said, “Ex­cept in nec­es­sary self-de­fence or to im­pede es­cape or where the po­lice are be­ing ob­struct­ed in the per­for­mance of their du­ties, there is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for phys­i­cal abuse on the part of any mem­ber of the pro­tec­tive ser­vices.”


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored