By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
The Immigration Department is allegedly being used to “harass” a Canadian citizen who saved a 272-unit Freeport condominium complex from bankruptcy, and helped to near-double property values within a decade.
Bruno Rufa, who has launched a Judicial Review action challenging the Immigration Board’s refusal to issue himself and his partner, Sandra Georgiou, with a Home Owner Resident Card, is claiming the “renaissance” of the Coral Beach complex has resulted in a direct annual $1 million contribution to Freeport’s economy.
The application, filed by Mr Rufa’s attorneys at Callenders & Co, alleges that a “minority” of disgruntled home owners and former employees/contractors - unhappy with the changes the Coral Beach Board that he leads has introduced - have used the Immigration Department as a tool of “harassment” and intimidation across three successive administrations.
Legal documents, which have been obtained by Tribune Business, allege that a former Coral Beach employee accused of perpetrating a $125,000 fraud made a 2005 complaint that resulted in two Immigration officers visiting the condo complex.
And, in 2011, allegations that Mr Rufa and other Board members were working without valid work permits resulted in Coral Beach Management Company’s (CBMC) bank accounts being frozen for 12 months.
Noting that Mr Rufa has been the management company’s president since 2005, the Judicial Review application says: “During that time he has, with other Board members, been instrumental in arresting and preventing the devaluation and deterioration of Coral Beach into worthless dilapidation and bankruptcy, and transforming the 272 condominium residential units into a valuable, desirable, well-run, residential complex.
“Coral Beach is the largest condominium complex in Freeport. The values of units there have now more than doubled as a result of his stewardship. As an example, studio units sold for $35,000 to $40,000 in 2005. Now, in 2015, it would be difficult to purchase a studio for less than $70,000 to $75,000.”
Some, though, are unlikely to view Mr Rufa as the ‘saviour’ of Coral Beach and its property values. The legal documents admit that the Canadian was arrested and deported in September 2007 for allegedly breaching the Immigration Act.
Fred Mitchell, minister of immigration, told the House of Assembly that complaints about the Canadian and his behaviour “are numerous and consistent”.
The Department of Immigration also denied suggestions by Mr Rufa’s attorney, Fred Smith QC, that the case would undermine investor confidence in the security of their status in the Bahamas.
It said in a statement: “Characterising the enforcement of the country’s Immigration laws as a threat to investors generally is a figment of the vivid imagination of Mr Fred Smith QC.”
Tribune Business sources in Freeport have suggested that the situation involving Mr Rufa may be more ‘style than substance’, with some not warming to his manner or the way in which he and the Board have introduced reforms.
A minority of Coral Beach’s units, some 44 or 16 per cent, are owned by Bahamians, with the remaining 230 belonging to foreign residents who visit Freeport every year - especially in winter.
“Many of the units are owned by between four to six owners,” the Judicial Review challenge said.
“Frequently throughout the year, these owners have family members or friends stay at their units. These owners, family and friends hail from throughout the world, but largely from Canada and the United States. Coral Beach brings literally thousands of guests to Freeport annually for weeks and months at a time.
“This influx of residents and their guests inject millions of dollars into the Freeport economy annually. In addition, Coral Beach Management Company itself, in staff and services spends directly over $1 million annually. This does not take into account the monies spent by owners in ongoing renovations, repairs and upgrades to their units.”
Then, getting to the ‘heart’ of its allegations, the Judicial Review application alleged: “The current vigour of Coral beach’s micro economy and its contribution to the Freeport economy are due largely to the renaissance of Coral Beach, born of the ‘2005 Board’ as it has become known, led by its president since then; Bruno Rufa.
“His and his colleagues’ efforts in transforming Coral Beach have won them the near universal approval of owners at Coral Beach, save for a very small minority.
“This minority of disgruntled unit owners, and former employees/contractors and others, have taken steps to make mischief for Mr Rufa and other directors of CBMC. This has resulted in a campaign of harassment, which had included Mr Rufa’s detractors seeking to - and succeeding - in using the Immigration Department to cause difficulties for Mr Rufa.”
Listing incidents of these alleged “difficulties”, the Judicial Review filing claims that problems started after Coral Beach Management Company in September 2005 ended its contracts with several independent companies, resulting in the lay-off of 15 workers.
Two months later, it launched a legal action against two former employees for “financial mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and fraud seeking damages in excess of $125,000”.
“One week later, one of these former employees stated his intention to report Board member Phil Galiano to the Immigration Department,” the Judicial Review filing alleged.
“He duly called two Immigration officers, who came to Coral Beach. No arrests are made.”
The legal documents allege that Mr Rufa was subjected to an Internet smear campaign by three former Coral Beach Board members from 2006, with other incidents involving Immigration and the police occurring before the management company’s accounts were frozen in 2011.
That allegedly resulted from complaints to Immigration that Mr Rufa and other Board members were working without the necessary permits.
“This in turn was reported to the Central Bank of the Bahamas, and the result was that CBMC’s bank accounts being effectively frozen for a period,” the Judicial Review action alleges.
“The matter was finally (12 months after the initial complaint) resolved by a letter dated 13 December, 2011, from the Office of the Attorney General to Callenders, the Office of the Attorney General stating that it had reviewed the matter and could confirm its view that the directors of Coral Beach were not in contravention of the Immigration Act.”
Mr Rufa and Ms Georgiou, who have been property owners at Coral Beach for 15 years, are challenging the September 8, 2015, decision not to issue them with Home Owner Resident Cards.
They are alleging that the decision is illegal, “irrational”, procedurally unfair and a “breach of natural justice’.
Comments
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
“Characterising the enforcement of the country’s Immigration laws as a threat to investors generally is a figment of the vivid imagination of Mr Fred Smith QC.”
From what I see Mr. Smith's cases are all because Immigration is not enforcing the immigration law. If they were following the law properly Mr. Smith would not be wining any cases.
realfreethinker 8 years, 3 months ago
The problem is not Fred Smith. The problem is an out of control government that use the immigration department as their personal vendetta machine. Our immigration laws are used so selectively,it is hard to tell when the law is really broken. Remember the cuban who was to testify about abuse at the detention center was deported brfore he could testify. The government "at great expense had to fly personell there to interview him.
Voltaire 8 years, 3 months ago
Indeed, Economist. But that type of logical thinking eludes commentators on immigration issues in this country.
TalRussell 8 years, 3 months ago
The Comrades of Bahamaland should all be funding and campaigning for the 2017 General's re-election of The Honourabe Minister for Immigration Fred Mitchell.
Never in long history of our nation has any Crown Minister practiced such ministerial transparency.
Minister Freddy keeps the people informed of the ongoing activities of immigration when
compared a complete lack transparency behind closed-blinds of the former DPM & Minister of Immigration Brent - who ain't shared noting immigration policies and actions with the people.
Tarzan 8 years, 3 months ago
This is hilarious. Transparency? Fred Mitchell? Deport before testimony that would expose his fascist department? Fred shows the transparency of his good pals the Castro Brothers. The transparency of the Gulag!
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
Fred Smith found the perfect Jackass in Bruno Rufa to finance and advance his political agenda. Had Fred Smith not defended and secured the illegal liquor license to operate the bar at coral beach, Bruno Rufa would not be in this mess. Rufa is dragging the condo association into bankruptcy with legal fees, over $300K spent already, owners are putting their apartments up for sale.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
If a Liquor License was obtained, it is not illegal. That means that what was done was legal. How is it illegal?
Since when does one apply for an illegal liquor license? Do you have an illegal gun license or an illegal car license?
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
one does not apply for an illegal liquor license, one does apply for a liquor license illegally by providing false information and perjuring yourself.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
Wow, those are strong words. You need to be careful on a public forum unless you can back up what you say.
Just saying.
birdiestrachan 8 years, 3 months ago
The FNM was the government in 2007 and 20ll Rufa has saved the Coral Beach complex. that is most interesting. what is written here is Fred Smith's view. There is another side. Rufa seemed to be in the business of putting people out of work. and it appears he has hurt many people. That is the impression this article gives. Now these millions that is spent by owners of Coral Beach complex will it all stop if Rufa goes?. and does life go on even when persons are no longer here.?
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
Birdie, give us facts.
How many people were employed when he took over? How many people are employed now?
How much did the condo association spend per year before he took over and how much does it spend now?
I wait for your detailed response.
seagrape 8 years, 3 months ago
The owners are being robbed blind, no certified audit since Bruno Rufa took over in 2006. Prior to 2006 legal fees were $12K per year now $300K per year. The auditor Deloitte just recently quit leaving the condo association with no auditor. No audit company want to take on Coral Beach under Rufa's leadership. What saved the condo was the Insurance proceeds from Hurricane Francis and Jeanne plus the $1.5 million in assessment, which to date has not been properly accounted for and work not completed since hurricane Francis. The condo association's reserve fund is rapidly being depleted on Rufa's legal troubles.
bluesky 8 years, 3 months ago
Mr.Mitchell, instead of wasting time, send some of your boys to investigate a company called "Kenilworth Investments Limited". you might be able to arrest Rufa, his wife, and the entire Coral Beach BOD in one swoop, you may even get Fred Smith as a bonus.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
If things are as bluesky and seagrape say then why don't the unit members get together and change the board? If the majority is unhappy they have the power to change things.
bluesky 8 years, 3 months ago
This BOD led by Rufa is entrenched, there is no getting rid of this BOD. Rufa said at the AGM, quote :- "To become a Board member you have to be invited by me !!! ". Even deported, Rufa can still be President from Canada . Owners who stand against him have their power shutdown, their guest and family evicted , get penalties ,fines and be deemed Undesirable. The proxies are controlled by the BOD. Difficult for an unhappy majority of elderly Owners to make changes under these conditions.The last group who tried had to sell their unit and leave The Bahamas . B. Rufa is fighting hard to stay in The Bahamas to keep control of this company . A perfect company for money laundering.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
No bluesky no condo works that way. Check the law. The majority rules.
bluesky 8 years, 3 months ago
Check the law, what law? Coral Beach is a society within a society their laws trumps Bahamian laws, good luck trying to persuade the BOD otherwise. They often speak disparagingly of Bahamian Law. The majority has been divided and conquered, chained like elephants, therefore cannot rule.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
What you are saying is that the majority are not yet ready to make any change. Are you one of those disgruntled owners or a friend of one?
I have been on a couple of condo boards (first one because we, the majority, changed the board) and the majority can always change a board.
The board had been the same for many years when I bought. 6 months before the AGM a group of us got together and to see if there was any support to change the board. We contacted each owner (many did not live here so it takes time energy and organization) and got proxies.
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
http://thetribune.media.clients.ellin...">Perfect example of Coral Beach Hotel Condominium by sunnyday
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
How many owners in your condo association? Were the Board Members prior to your group taking over, decent people? How did they react when they found out your group was gathering proxies? Did you find any wrong doings after your group took over the association? Did you victimized any of the past Board members? Did your group conduct the affairs of the association with integrity after you gained control? Was any member of your group charged with a criminal offense? The President of Coral Beach condo association got arrested, charged in court, never informed the owners that he was arrested and charged, spent $300K of the owners money on his legal defense. The owners found out via local news media. Don't you agree that something is wrong with this picture?
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
It certainly seems so. But with all that, it is surprising that the foreign owners have not voted them out.
We got the most help from the foreign owners. Many of them were Canadian where the condo law is similar to ours, indeed The Bahamas Condo law comes from Canada.
They were the ones who coordinated most of the foreign owners proxies.
The board that we removed had been in control for 19 years. Yes things were run down and no we had not had any accounts for three years.
When the old board found out what we were doing they were not too happy, but you only have to put up with their tactics for a couple of months, until you remove them.
With all of what you are saying, I can't see the foreign owners (Canadian or U.S.) putting up with it, and certainly not year after year. What nationality are the majority of the owners?
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
It seems that your past BOD was not ruthless. They could have simply change the format of the proxies and render all of your hard earned proxies useless, after all the BOD are the ones who control the proxies. this is the kind of tactics that Mr Rufa used at Coral Beach. over the past ten years every candidate that ran against the BOD, had either their power turned off, Guests evicted or forced to sell and go, or suffered some kind of abuse.
The company operating a Hotel ,Restaurant and Bar . Coral Beach has 272 units. 30% of the owners just can't be bothered.15% is owned by one Board Member. another 15% don't want to get involved but send their proxies to the office. The BOD has 15% support. 25% don't support the BOD. When you tally the numbers the BOD has 45% overall support. The deciding factor is the 15% proxy votes sent to the office. The BOD control the proxy votes by not allowing the opposition candidate's names on the proxies, only Board members names are sent out on the proxies to all shareholders. Before Bruno Rufa and his BOD took over , all candidate's names were on the proxies . Opposition candidates can only run from the floor at the AGM which makes it impossible to win.
Economist 8 years, 3 months ago
30% that can't be bothered......seems that they don't feel the need for a change, if they felt the need for a change they would be bothered.
sunnyday 8 years, 3 months ago
If the place is burning to the ground this 30% won't be bothered. Even the BOD can't get the 30% to be bothered. They tried to amend the articles a few times but could not get 75% of the votes. My point is the deciding 15% proxy votes sent to the office could make the difference.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID