Pettingill: Corruption claims innuendo, lies

Former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill describes the suggestion he had someone seeking payment of a bribe on his behalf as “ridiculous”

A developer’s allegations of Government corruption over the development of the Hamilton waterfront are “farcical” and based on “hearsay, innuendo and lies”, according to Mark Pettingill, the One Bermuda Alliance MP.

The former Attorney-General was one of three government ministers that Michael MacLean alleges asked for bribes to the tune of millions of dollars in return for their support of his projects.

Mr MacLean suggests in an affirmation, which has been put before the Supreme Court as part of his legal battle with the Bermuda Government into the voiding of the waterfront contracts, that he was told by businessman Steven DeCosta that Mr Pettingill’s money was to be put into a British Virgin Islands bank account.

But in his counter affidavit the MP for constituency 25 dismisses the accusation and brands the assertion “demonstrably ridiculous” given his position and understanding of money laundering legislation.

Mr Pettingill states: “I do not have, nor have I ever had, a bank account in the British Virgin Islands either in my own name or in any name that in any way attaches to me through relatives, friends or vehicles such as a company.

“I never sent Mr DeCosta or anyone else any banking details for the British Virgin Islands (and) I am fully prepared to waive any banking confidentiality or privilege relation to that confirmation that I do not have any such account.

“Moreover the suggestion that I would have an offshore bank account in my name which was to be the repository of illegally obtained funds is demonstrably ridiculous when one has regard to the fact that as Attorney-General (i) I was the effective head of the Financial Intelligence Agency, (ii) I was a politically exposed person for the purposes of worldwide money laundering regimes with the result that (iii) I would be automatically on the radar screen in worldwide banking institutions and a deposit of the magnitude that Mr MacLean suggests would undoubtedly have caused the automatic generation or a suspicious activity report and resulted in immediate investigation.”

In his affirmation Mr Pettingill states that his own assessment of Mr MacLean was that he “lacked credibility and integrity” and that he had only met with him on a handful of occasions when Mr Mac- Lean had wanted to postpone payment of stamp duty because he did not have the funds.

He further states: “Consequently as a member of Cabinet during 2013 I was generally not in favour of providing any Government support for him in connection with Par-la-Ville or waterfront projects.

“I was quite open about this with the Premier and my Cabinet colleagues and my position remained the same throughout my tenure as Attorney-General.

“However beyond being involved in Cabinet discussions, the fact of the matter is that I had very little dealing with either the projects mentioned or the issues that Mr MacLean raises.”

Mr Pettingill denies ever initiating any discussions with Mr MacLean and describes the suggestion that he had someone seeking payment of a bribe on his behalf three days after winning an election as “frankly ridiculous”.

“A large part of my time in office was spent establishing The Civil Asset Recovery Authority and this was done in part with a view to recovering overpayments for Government funds by the previous administration to a number of individuals.

“The idea that I would seek to bribe by way of payment of millions of dollars to an offshore account is farcical, particularly in light of my position and understanding of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer procedures and Politically Exposed Persons.

“It is an absolute deplorable nonsense that I should have my name and reputation sullied by hearsay, innuendo and lies in the manner that has occurred in these proceedings. All that has been said as pertains to me personally is unfounded and untrue, and I find it wholly reprehensible that I should have to publicly respond to these matters.”