BAD FAITH IN LITIGATION: BOGUS CLAIMS THAT THE DEPOSITORS WHO SUED HAMILTON RESERVE BANK WERE MONEY LAUNDERERS

If you wanted to know why the Hamilton Reserve Bank customers who sued the bank for return of their demand deposits were outraged, it was the imposition, by bank counsel, of the defense that the depositor plaintiffs were money launderers. The bank asserted this as the principle reason why it failed to return their money to a large number of depositors. The reason for the customers' anger is that each new Hamilton Bank client was required to execute a sworn affidavit attesting to the legitimate Source of Funds for their deposit, and support it with documentary evidence. How can the bank turn around and allege money laundering? It apparently wired some of these customers' funds into banks in the United States.

This bogus defense is without any legal merit, and deserving of sanctions, against not only the bank, but the responsible lawyers as well. Additionally, alleging tax evasion and terrorist financing, without a scintilla of officially verified evidence, as a smokescreen to delay what was a very elementary legal issue, I find to be further evidence of dilatory and unethical conduct; the attorneys guilty of such unethical conduct should be brought before the tribunal that regulate their licenses, and the results of those hearings published by Caribbean media. They have clearly violated the Legal Profession Act of 2008, as amended.

Those lawyers knew very well that they could not produce evidence of pending criminal investigations in the United States. The Court graciously used the term "Mischief," as to that conduct, but I would use much stronger language, and seek to identify who at Hamilton Reserve Bank ordered that they be employed to delay and wickedly complicate the proceedings. We will be identifying those lawyers, who richly deserve sanctions or worse, so that future potential clients learn about their professional ethics history.