The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

JEAN Paul Michelsen’s lawyer yesterday begged a magistrate not to imprison his client who was convicted of stealing more than $50,000 from a customer who paid him to supply and install air conditioning units for a western New Providence home.

Michelsen is the chief operating officer of Stellar Energy, a company that has proposed to build a $600m waste-to-energy plant in New Providence. His conviction came a month after he was acquitted of stealing more than $150,000 from a customer under similar circumstances in another trial.

Yesterday’s outcome took a different course, however, as Magistrate Guilimina Archer found that the prosecution had “satisfied the burden of proof” in this case.

Before judgment was passed on Michelson, his lawyer Keith Seymour, told Magistrate Archer that the first time offender should be given “one more chance” to make things right with L’Neil Corriveau by refunding the $55,145 he received from her between April 12, 2011 and April 3, 2013 and deposited into a Bank of The Bahamas (BOB) account.

He was spared jail time provided he meets conditions prescribed by the judge.

The magistrate said Michelson would receive an alternative punishment if he, at the end of a 30-day deadline, failed to meet certain conditions ordered by the court, including the full restoration of the monies taken from the complainant.

Michelson had been hired to supply and install air conditioning units into a home the complainant and her husband were building in Coral Harbour in 2011/13.

Two cheque payments were made to Michelson, then-president of Bahamas Energy Solutions Ltd, in April and July 2011 respectively in the amounts of $26,547 and $28,598.

The defence acknowledged this fact during the trial.

Corriveau made numerous requests for his compliance or a refund after Michelson failed to fulfil any aspect of the agreement.

In his sworn statement, Michelson said he had received the money and deposited the cheques into a Bank of The Bahamas account before purchasing the units.

Michelson claimed he had ordered the units but they were not delivered as the completion of the Coral Harbour home was delayed by nearly two years, resulting in his inability to do the installations.

Magistrate Archer during her ruling noted that “it’s patently clear to the court he was providing a service to the complainant.

“The issue for the court is to determine whether or not the defendant dishonestly appropriated the monies entrusted to him by reason of his service.”

While noting that the burden of proof was on the Crown to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the magistrate said that “no evidence was produced by the defendant to show how the money was spent” or to substantiate that the equipment was purchased.

The magistrate added that she carefully observed the demeanour of all the witnesses that gave evidence, including Michelson and she found that he “was not being totally truthful as he sought to account for the monies received by him.”

Taking the evidence of the prosecution and defence into consideration, the magistrate found that the prosecution had “satisfied the burden of proof.”

“The defendant is therefore found guilty and convicted of the offence of stealing by reason of service,” the magistrate ruled.

Michelson then spoke briefly with Mr Seymour before the lawyer addressed the court.

Mr Seymour said that Michelson “is 53-years-old, married and a business owner.”

“He’s been a business owner here since 1997,” the lawyer added.

While noting that his client still maintains his not guilty plea, Mr Seymour said his client “is in the court’s hands.”

“He’d given a statement as to the circumstances and he felt he was responsible as the product was not delivered in a timely fashion.”

Mr Seymour claimed that there was no “current bad blood” between his client and the complainant.

“This is an isolated incident and going through all of this, he’s pretty much been punished already,” the lawyer submitted. “My client is offering 100 per cent compensation to the virtual complainant and asks that he be given a short period of time to do so.”

“We humbly beg the court for one more chance for this defendant and ask the court not to impose a custodial sentence. We ask that you let mercy prevail.”

Magistrate Archer then addressed Michelson, having heard Mr Seymour and learning from police prosecutor Sgt Timothy Saunders that Michelson had no prior antecedents.

“I’ve heard the submissions made by your counsel which I’ve given consideration to and note that you still maintain your not guilty plea, but it has been the court’s view that you dishonestly appropriated the funds that were entrusted to you,” the magistrate said.

“Your act was one of dishonesty. Dishonesty never pays. It’s better to be honest in business dealings as that will always put you in a better stead. I’m sure if you had been honest with the virtual complainant and explained why you were having challenges, you would not be in this position today. This is an offence that can carry a term of imprisonment,” she added.

“However, I am not of the view that a custodial sentence should be imposed. It is my belief that the virtual complainants are more desirous of the restoration of their monies.”

“I’m going to conditionally discharge you on these conditions; that you do not have any further infractions for a one-year period, that you do 50 hours of community service to the Persis Rodgers Old Folks Home on or before January 10, 2015, and provide proof of full recompense to the virtual complainant on or before January 10, 2015.”

“Failure to do so and there will be another punishment,” the magistrate said.

“I kindly thank you,” Michelson replied with a nod.

After the conviction, he said “no comment” when approached by The Tribune.

Mr Seymour, however, said that they “will abide by the ruling of the court and we will adhere to the conditions that were imposed in trying to satisfy them so that all parties, at the end of the day, are satisfied.”

A month ago, Magistrate Archer discharged Michelson of stealing by reason of service after determining that the matter ought to have been properly brought before the civil court.

The magistrate said the court had “reviewed and considered the evidence in its entirety” and could not rule in the affirmative that Michelson dishonestly misappropriated the $161,790 belonging to Carlton Wilkinson between January 24 and May 1, 2012.

According to the evidence of the complainant in that case, $153,640 was given to Michelsen in two cheque payments on January 24 in the amount of $118,000 plus and another $42,000 plus on May 1.

The payments were made to purchase Mitsubishi A/C unit and supplies through the defendant’s company at the time, Bahamas Energy Solutions Ltd, and were intended for use by the complainant for a project on Harbour Island.

However, only a little more than $8,000 was returned to the complainant and none of the equipment delivered as contracted.

Michelson, in his sworn defence, said an order was made to the supplier, paid in full and delivered to a location in the United States in a storage unit until the complainant’s need for the goods.

The defendant claimed he had no further dealing with the order and that it was his former business partner who removed the equipment from the Florida address that ultimately led to the closure of BES Ltd.

The court noted that this was not rebutted by the prosecution and that the complainant, in cross-examination, confirmed receiving confirmation of the payment and shipping information.