0

Prosecutors allege Rudolph King defrauded Post Office of more than $650,000

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

RUDOLPH King was re-arraigned on fraud charges in the Magistrate’s Court Thursday, with prosecutors increasing the amount of money he allegedly defrauded from the General Post Office to more than $650,000.

The impresario is accused of defrauding the General Post Office of over half a million dollars, then laundering that amount between 2012 and 2015.

In 2019, King was charged with five counts each of fraud and money laundering concerning allegations that he defrauded the Post Office’s savings account of over $632,416 between June 2012 and April 2015.

However, during Thursday’s proceedings, the court was told that the actual amount the accused allegedly defrauded during the time period totaled $661,648.

The prosecution amended the charges to reflect that amount, resulting in King being re-arraigned before Senior Magistrate Derence Rolle-Davis.

According to the prosecution, King defrauded the GPO’s savings account of $149,668 between June 13, 2012 and April 2, 2015; another $242,875 between June 11, 2012 and April 15, 2015; another $151,252 between August 12, 2014 and March 26, 2015; an additional $14,477 between October 30, 2014 and April 8, 2015; and another $103,376.25 between November 11, 2014 and March 5, 2015.

The prosecution also alleged that King laundered the individual amounts between June 2012 to April 2015.

However, King denied all of the allegations on Thursday.

Two witnesses also testified on Thursday during King’s ongoing trial.

During the hearing, Randolph Minnis, a former Bank of the Bahamas employee, was the first witness to testify. Minnis told the court that he was the bank’s operational risk manager during his time of employment at the local bank, from April 2011 to June 2020.

Asked by Crown prosecutor Eucal Bonaby if he was involved in any matters concerning King, Minnis told the court that he obtained copies of certain documents requested by a police sergeant at the time.

Minnis also told the court he prepared a memo, detailing which documents were located.

After the documents were presented to Mr Minnis in court for confirmation, Mr Bonamy revealed the nature of the documents, explaining they “dealt with letters of authorisation and missing drafts.”

Shortly thereafter, Minnis was shown another set of documents, which he confirmed to be “copies of bank drafts that were produced from letters of instruction” by the GPO.

Asked how many bank drafts there were, he replied: “Eleven.”

The second witness to take the stand was Wayne Rolle, who said he works at the General Post Office. The court was told that Mr Rolle has been an employee there for more than a decade.

Asked by Mr Bonamy if he recalled receiving any document sometime in 2015 “with respect to” King’s case, Mr Rolle replied that he did.

He also confirmed that he gave statements in relation to the matter in November 2017 and July 2019.

He told the court he remembered King giving him “a package” for the then postmistress, whom he claimed he did not see to work that day.

“That was after 5pm in the afternoon,” he told the court. “I was posted at the security desk… at the General Post Office.”

Asked if he saw King prior to that, Mr Rolle said he remembered seeing the accused outside speaking to another employee, whom he identified as Sheree Minnis, just before he was approached by him.

The court was also told that Mr Rolle had previously identified King on a photograph that was presented to him, showing the faces of twelve different people.

Asked if the person he had identified was in court, Mr Rolle replied “yes” and pointed to King.

During cross-examination, Damien Gomez, QC – who represents King—questioned Mr Rolle concerning his witness statement.

He said Mr Rolle noted that the event happened sometime at the end of 2015, but did not indicate exactly when.

“Was that November or December?” Mr Gomez questioned.

However, Mr Rolle told the court he could not remember the exact month.

The case was subsequently adjourned to July 13 at 10am.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.