As the multi-million-dollar luxury car tax evasion case against businessman Azruddin Mohamed continued in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court today, the Attorney for the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Sanjeev Datadin, signaled his intention to have the Court summons representatives from both local and foreign banking institutions to testify in the case against Mohamed.

Mohamed, who remains sanctioned by the US, is facing two counts of tax evasion and fraudulent declaration in relation to a luxury vehicle he imported back in late 2020.

Datadin told acting Chief Magistrate, Faith Mc Gusty that the “bankers” cannot divulge information unless they are summons by a Court.

“We have to essentially summons them to come to court because they can’t divulge [information]…they are uncomfortable divulging information except the law says to a court,” he explained.

The Prosecuting Attorney is hoping to have the representatives of the local and foreign banking institutions appear before the Court at the start of the trial.

But the Defence is arguing that the Court has no jurisdiction in the case, contending that the charges ought to have been filed within six months of the alleged offences.

Datadin, however, told the Court that the Defence team is cherry picking aspects of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, arguing further that the Act is subjected to another law.

“The Customs Act says that the limitation period is seven years,” he pointed out.

Attorney-at-Law Siand Dhurjon, who forms part of the battery of lawyers representing Mohamed, told the Court that the Summary Jurisdiction (Procedure) Act, in particular Section 6, states “where no time is specifically limited for making a complaint for a summary conviction offence, the limitation period is to be six months.”

He submitted that the charges have been filed extremely late. Dhurjon noted that while the Prosecution has relied on the Customs Act, the act is vague, indicating that proceedings may commence anytime within seven years after the date of the offence.

“It is our contention that this does not specifically limit time for making the complaint for a summary jurisdiction offence,” he said while adding that “the drafters, when they drafted the Customs Act, they did not contemplate the using of the [Act] for making a complaint for summary jurisdiction offence matter. Proceedings under the Customs Act, proceedings under the Customs Act, you may have civil proceedings, even administrative proceedings, you may have criminal proceedings too, you may have appeal proceedings to a tribunal, you may have appeal proceedings to the president under the Customs Act. All of that is contemplated but what is missing in Section 2, 54 of the Customs Act, it does not say criminal proceedings, it does not say all proceedings, it does not say any proceedings, it does not say proceedings for making a complaint for a summary jurisdiction offence,” he argued.

Further to that, Dhurjon told the Court that the GRA has so far failed to provide the evidence to prove its case.

“Where is the evidence. They are unable at this time, after the midnight hour, to disclose the relevant evidence in respect of the charges,” he said.

The Court has therefore set July 8 for full disclosure in the matter. Mohamed remains on $500,00 bail for the two offences.

Related posts:

Criminal defamatory libel ruled unconstitutional; Summons served outside Guyana deemed unlawful -Acting Chief Justice in Rickford Burke case Azruddin Mohamed on $500,000 bail for tax evasion and false declaration charges High Court throws out GRA’s additional Affidavit in Mohamed luxury car tax case Rickford Burke seeks High Court order against service of summons at his New York residence and defamation charge