The Mysterious Million Dollar Assets

A September 2007 Special Assignment Analysis

[toc title="Quick Jumps:  In This Article"  style="width:100%"]

The growing spectacle of a few public officials conspicuously involved in personal multi-million dollar asset acquisition that cannot be explained by their legal income, reveals the extent to which corruption is undercutting development and good governance while breeding criminality and mistrust around the country.

The people of Dominica will recall that on August 12^th, 2007 Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit sought to give the impression that apart from a 400 thousand dollar house he is planning to build he has no other property interests.

He said then:

“I do not own properties in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean or in any other country…”

.

Listen to  Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit Disclosure

.

However, according to the August 29^th, 2007 edition of the Times newspaper, the Prime Minister appears to have amassed millions of dollar in assets disproportionate to his legal income known to be less than 80 thousand dollars per year.

The assets acquired by Mr. Skerrit since he became a Minister of Government include but are not limited to:

.

Description	Reg. #	Date of Purchase	Declared Price	Market Value
0.5 acres of land, Picard	N5 fol. 17	Jun 27, 2003	$42,500	$261,000
Land for $400,000 house, Vielle case	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
2.06 acres of land, Trafalgar	D16 fol. 16	Aug 02, 2005	$90,000	$537,660
2.989 acres of land, Wallhouse	D16 fol. 70	Aug 22, 2005	$140,283	$650,108
Vehicle –Mitsubishi Pajero	PK 497	2005	$125,000	$200,000

.

The clear examples of unacceptable governance conduct arising from these acquisitions by Mr. Skerrit have brought the Office of Prime Minister into disrepute and therefore present a compelling case for a full investigation encompassing critical areas of concern:

1. Unaccounted Property

The Integrity In Public Office Act number 6 of 2003 provides at section 47 (1) that “A person in public life who is found to be in possession of property or pecuniary resource disproportionate to his legitimate sources of income commits an offense and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of two thousand dollars, and imprisonment for a term of two years, and to forfeiture of the assets so found.”

The public has a right to know whether apart from his salary and allowances as a Minister of Government from February 2000 and as Prime Minister from January 2004, Mr. Skerrit’s legal income also includes other so far undisclosed income streams.

If they exist, the public also has a right to know the sources of these additional income streams and whether or not any of them may be in conflict with Mr. Roosevelt Skerrit’s sworn undertaking to be faithful to the public interest at all times.

There is no merit in the suggestions by spin doctors of Mr. Skerrit that his legal income was sufficient to cover the purchase of land assets valued at over one million dollars.

This is because we still do not know for sure, whether he received a gift, whether he paid the alleged heavily discounted prices or whether he paid the market prices that other citizens would have paid.

Most importantly, attempts by Mr. Skerrit and company to confuse the issue of the purchase price of the Trafalgar property on the Memorandum of Transfer have triggered public mistrust of all similar matters in the name of Mr. Skerrit.

2. Property Values and the State’s Tax Revenue

The evidence from Mr. Skerrit’s land transfer documents suggests that he has consistently been able to purchase large tracts of land from private individuals at prices well below the market value.

In the public interest of the good and just governance of Dominica, we need to determine whether this is in fact the case or whether purchase prices below market value were used by Mr. Skerrit and/or his attorneys as part of a tax evasion scheme to defraud the state.

As a result of the failure of Mr. Skerrit and his lawyers to use the legally prescribed method for the computation of land transfer taxes, the state lost $86,787.45 in revenue. $65,090.59 from the transfer taxes at 7.5% of value and $21,696.86 from the vendor’s fees at 2.5% of value.

And it is not that Mr. Skerrit is unaware of his responsibility for revenue collection and protection as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Pursuant to his fiduciary responsibilities as custodian of the public purse, Mr. Skerrit constantly reminds hardworking citizens to pay their taxes truthfully and completely.

Therefore, in terms of his own commitment to pay taxes as and when required, Mr. Skerrit knows that he needs to exercise extra caution to ensure that he is leading by example in making accurate, on-time and complete payments into the Treasury.

[toc title="Quick Jumps:  In This Article"  style="width:100%"]

3. Property Values and the Acceptance of Gifts

The Code of Conduct in the Second Schedule of the Integrity in Public Office Act provides that:

• (a) A person in public life shall not in return for anything done, omitted to be done in the execution of his duties, ask for or accept for himself or any person, any money, property, benefits or favours of any kind over and above that which he is lawfully entitled to receive for the performance of his duties

The advantage of land to a Government Minister at prices significantly below market value raises the prospect of bribery and other forms of corruption as defined in part 6 of the Integrity in Public Office Act.

There needs to be truthful and complete disclosure of the prices paid by Mr. Skerrit for his various properties and whatever other considerations may have been involved in the acquisitions.

It is disgraceful to use forced unsworn statements from an obviously vulnerable senior citizen to give the impression that the Mr. Skerrit received a gift of land from the very Marina Shillingford who signed a memorandum of transfer in August 2005 stating that Mr. Skerrit paid her (and she received) $90,000 for the same land.

The standard, settled practice in the transfer of property as a gift is to use “for Love and Affection” or “$1.00” as the consideration on the Memorandum of Transfer. Every lawyer knows that and typically acts accordingly pursuant to the client’s instructions.

The state of public confusion over whether Mr. Skerrit bought the Trafalgar property or whether he received it as a gift is now compounded by Stephen Isidore’s admission of so called “mistakes” in his application for the Certificate of Title.

Mr. Isidore has also admitted to what he terms “mistakes” in the calculation of fees due to the state in respect of the transfer of title for the Wallhouse property to Mr. Skerrit.

Accordingly, Mr. Isidore’s legal practice in so far as land transfer certification is concerned, needs to be fully investigated for two reasons:

• 1. By way of his confession, there is now prima facie evidence of violation of Section 169 of the Title by Registration Act which states as follows:

• “Any person who fraudulently procures, or is privy to the fraudulent procuring of any certificate of title or instrument, or of any noting or entry in the register in respect of any land or title thereto, or in respect of any dealing with land under this Act, is liable to a fine of fifteen thousand dollars or to imprisonment for two years

• 1. There is need to ascertain the State’s revenue losses arising out of Mr. Isidore’s self confirmed lack of knowledge of how the state’s land transfer fees are computed. It is therefore necessary to have an in-depth examination of all land transfer matters handled by the Chambers of Emanuel and Isidore from the time that Mr. Isidore entered private practice until September 4^th, 2007.

It is clear that the difference between the land prices purportedly paid by Mr. Skerrit and the known market values represent unauthorized gifts of a non-trivial nature, which should be surrendered to the state under section 35 of the Integrity In Public Office Act.

• 35. (5) Where the (Integrity) Commission finds through an inquiry that the gift was given to the person in public life as a State gift or was given to the person in public life personally but that gift –

• • • • was not trivial; or
      1. was intended to be a motive reward for doing or abstaining from anything in the course of the performance of his official duties and functions or causing any other person from doing or forbearing to do anything,

• the Commission shall direct the person in public life in writing to deliver the gift to the Financial Secretary within such period, not exceeding thirty days, as may be specified by the Commission, and the person in public life shall comply with the direction within the time so specified.

4. Conflict of Interest

We now have confirmation from agents of Mr. Skerrit that he is directly involved in the buying and selling of land for his own private gain while occupying the office of Prime Minister.

In the conduct of Mr. Skerrit’s personal land business:

• • At least one public officer has being used to do private land valuation work for Mr. Skerrit which appears to have produced results against the state’s best interest.

  • Public officers (for example the office of the Registrar) have shied away from subjecting Mr. Skerrit’s personal land registration transactions to the same stringent revenue collection standards customarily used for other private citizens.

  • Land sought by the Villagers of Trafalgar for the public purpose of village expansion, has been acquired in highly controversial circumstances by Mr. Skerrit for his own personal gain.

We believe that these examples present clear evidence that Mr. Skerrit’s behavior in the Office of Prime Minister is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct contained in the Integrity in Public Office Act which states at 1(d):

• “A person in public life shall not allow private interests to conflict with his public duties or improperly influence his conduct in the performance of his public duties; allow the pursuit of his private interest to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duties; and any conflict between his private interests and his public duties shall be resolved in favour of his public duties.”

5. Intended Legislative Consequences

The Integrity In Public Office Act was passed in the House of Assembly on April 30^th, 2003. The President assented to it on May 29^th, 2003 and it was Gazetted on June 5^th, 2003.

While the country waited year after year for this Act to come into operation by Order from the President published in the Gazette, the very parliamentarians who voted for it were allowed to ignore with impunity the standards of professional conduct it prescribed for persons in public life.

The Prime Minister actually used his parliamentary majority to delay the implementation of the act while he and other ministers of government accepted gifts of land and other advantages in flagrant violation of the Act.

[toc title="Quick Jumps:  In This Article"  style="width:100%"]