Inquiry relating to the abductions of 11 youths: Some Defense counsel requested to favor certain Navy individuals: Director of CID

* “Why former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda was not named yet as a suspect into the inquiry”- Aggrieved party Counsel Seneviratne

*AG will carefully look into the facts and decide further legal actions on the inquiry: SSC Janaka Bandara

By Shehan Chamika Silva

During the magisterial inquiry relating to the alleged abduction of 11 youths in 2008, Director of the CID Shani Abeysekara yesterday revealed that, several years ago, some of the defense lawyers, who represent the suspects, have requested the investigators to favor several Navy individuals, who were at that time not named as suspects into the inquiry.

At the onset of the inquiry, President’s Counsel Shavendra Fernando and Counsel Asith Siriwardena raised a question over the inclusion of some details relating to them made by the prosecution on February 8, 2018 in the B report.

In February, the prosecution in a further report had included about some alleged involvement of the two defense counsel into the investigations. These details only appeared in the B report as they were not expressed to the Magistrate in open court.

Rejecting those allegations, the Defense counsel were of the view that it was totally false inclusion as the Prosecution had attempted to tarnish their reputation using the B report maliciously.

While the Prosecution and the Defense were contesting on this inclusion made by the prosecution into the B report, Director of the CID said what actually they included. He said that Counsel Asith Siriwardena, who currently appeared for the second suspect of the inquiry (Sumith Ranasinghe) had visited the CID director some time back (in 2013) and insisted not to name his client as a suspect into the inquiry.

Additionally, Mr. Shani Abeysekara also revealed that some suspects including D.K.P. Dasanayake had also met two Attorney General’s Department officers with the assistance of Counsel Asith Siriwardena prior to those individuals are named as suspects into the inquiry.

However, Counsel Asith Siriwardena denied all the allegations and maintained that he had not solicited such request from the Director of the CID. And also challenge the CID Director to prove such an alleged involvement of his in assisting those individuals to meet AG Department’s people.

He was of the view that he visited the Director with the second suspect, who was not a suspect then, in the capacity as a lawyer to convey whatever the things his client wanted to share with the Director.

The Defense counsel also drew the Court attention on the fact that why these facts were suddenly came into light as they were happened sometime back.

It was said that the both defense counsel had earlier served for the Attorney General’s Department and now at the private bar.

Explaining about the other inclusion into the B report on Shavendra Fernando PC, CID Director said that he had instructed him and the OIC of the CID who conducted the abduction inquiry to avoid getting down certain people into the investigation when Mr. Fernando was serving as a Deputy Solicitor General of the Attorney General’s Department.

According to the Director, this has happened during the time period where three ‘Habeas corpus’ cases were being inquired at the Chief Magistrate’s Court, where Mr. Fernando appeared for the respondents.

Rejecting all the allegations, Shavendra Fernando PC said that he had served for the Attorney General’s Department over thirty years and also served as legal director at the Navy. He said that it was a representation on behalf of the Attorney General in those Habeas corpus cases as the AG was too cited as a respondent in the habeas corpus cases by the petitioners.

After listening to some lengthy submissions of the counsel, the Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne directed the CID to prevent including irrelevant facts in the B report if those facts are outside of the inquiry.

Meanwhile, considering the delay that took the prosecution to conclude the investigation, Counsel Achala Seneviratne, who appeared for the aggrieved parties asked the Court and the Prosecution as to why some individuals mentioned continuously in several B reports are not named as suspects into the inquiry.

She was of the view that there was sufficient evidence in some of the statements recorded by the prosecution to ascertain some individuals have given instructions to the suspects.

When the Magistrate asked to be more certain on such alleged individuals, Counsel Seneviratne said: “Former Navy Commander Wasantha Karannagoda was one of them and why he was not named yet as a suspect is a serious question”.

Replying to that comment, Senior State Counsel Janaka Bandara who appeared for the CID explained the importance of perusing all the materials carefully before taking actions against individuals, he was of the view that the prosecution would need to consider on the weight of the evidence that they have to proceed with the case.

When questioned by the Magistrate, SSC Janaka Bandara said that they will thoroughly look into the materials collected in the whole inquiry within three months and report the court on the process of further legal actions of indictments.

SIM in Aloysius’ cell used by underworld figure

- SDSG Jayasundara says he was involved in the recent killing in south

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Relating to the special investigation conducted over the sim cards and mobile phones discovered in the remand cell of Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena, it was revealed that one of the sim cards had been used by an underworld figure, who was allegedly involved with the recent killing reported in the South.

This was revealed during the submission of Senior Deputy Solicitor General Haripriya Jayasundara in the magisterial inquiry over the Bond scam yesterday.

While informing the court about the probability of further legal action being taken into the incident by the prosecution, SDSG Jayasundara said that the prosecution is still receiving the communication details of the five sim cards from service providers to deal with the matter more intensively.

"The CID's inquiry into details of the sim cards could lead to very important revelations as one of the sim cards was used by an underworld figure in the remand cell and there was a rumor that he was said to have been involved in the killing which happened in the southern part of the country", SDSG said off the record.

Meanwhile, Perpetual Treasuries Ltd owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena were ordered to be re-remanded till August 2 by the magistrate over the magisterial inquiry in which they were accused of abetting and conspiring with Arjuna Mahendran to misappropriate public funds worth Rs. 688 million during the Bond auction held on February 27, 2015.   

Fort Magistrate sternly warns Prison officers to fulfill basic human needs of remand suspects

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne yesterday sternly warned the Prison Authority officials to give necessary attention on the suspects who were brought to be produced before the court as there was a complaint that suspects Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena had not received lunch or water till their case was taken up.

At the end of the magisterial inquiry into the bond issue, counsel who appeared for Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena informed the Fort Magistrate that their clients have not received lunch or water for the entire day while they were at the court house.

The Counsel said the suspects were brought into the court house in the morning despite the case being taken up at the afternoon.

When questioned by the Magistrate, both suspects said they received breakfast at 6.00 a.m. and were brought to the court with other suspects in the morning and since then they did not receive lunch or water till the case was taken up at 1.40 p.m.

Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne was seemingly unhappy about the incident and called all the suspects who were inside the court cell at the time and inquired about it.

However, when a senior officer of Prison Authority was questioned by the Magistrate it was said that the lunch was about to be provided to the suspects who were in the cell since morning but the lunch packets were received for the prison officers after the bond case was taken up. Therefore the other suspects were given lunch except Aloysius and Palisena.

Subsequently, Fort Magistrate observing the importance of providing the basic human needs even to a suspect, sternly warned the Prison Authority officials to prevent such incidents happening again as it was completely inappropriate and unacceptable and directed to provide the suspects with lunch immediately.

3 mobile phones, 5 sim cards found in remand cell of Aloysius and Palisena

--  Court allows prosecution to probe details of sim cards and phones

  By Shehan Chamika Silva

Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda yesterday during his submission revealed that the Special group of Prison Department officers has found three mobile phones and five sim cards from the remand cell of Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena in the Colombo Remand Prison.

 He said initially the prosecution had received an information that Aloysius and Palisena are allegedly communicating with outsiders using mobile phones and based on that the Prison Department had conducted a search on June 29, 2018 around 2 pm at 'H' ward of the remand prison.

 The Officials have found one mobile phone kept between the pillows of Arjun Aloysius, said ASG Kodagoda.

However, President's Counsel Anil Silva who appeared on behalf of Aloysius denied the allegation and said that those findings were not belonged to his client nor he had used them to communicate with outside as there were 30 other remand prisoners in the cell.

Acceding the prosecution's request the Magistrate permitted the CID to obtain details relating to the Sim cards and the imei numbers of the mobile phones.

ASG Kodagoda also pointed out that these findings could lead to more revelations while it could also amount to an offence fell under Prison Ordinance.

Ravi’s company CFO got Rs. 5 mn from Aloysius' WM Mendis & Company

 

-- Cheque from W.M. Mendis & Co delivered to Sinnaih through Certis Lanka

-- Certis Lanka officer says he encashed it and handed over the money in cash to Sinnaih

                           

-- Certis Lanka officer says he encashed more cheques and handed over money to third parties

  By Shehan Chamika Silva

 During the submission of ASG Yasantha Kodagoda in magisterial inquiry relating to the bond scam, it was revealed that WM Mendis & Company had given a Rs. 5 million to Brian Sinnaih, who was the Chief Finance Officer of Global Transportation and Logistic Pvt Ltd owned by former Minister Ravi Karunanayake through a courier service.

This was revealed from a statement given to the CID by one official of Certis Lanka courier services. The officer of Certis Lanka had also said that WM Mendis & Company had given him cheques addressed to his name and he subsequently encashed them and handed over the money in cash to different third parties.

 In his statement he had also stated that he had handed over a cash cheque of Rs. 10 million from WM Mendis & Company to Arjun Aloysius on the same day that he handed over the cash cheque to Sinnaih.

‘Unusual none recorded PTL-WM Mendis transactions may link with cheques given to outside parties’

- ASG Kodagoda observed those transactions may amount to criminal offences under the Monetary Act and the Money Laundering Act

 - 2487 cheques amounting to Rs. 1134 million had been issued from WM Mendis & Companies during January 2015 to September 2016 which should be perused so as to ascertain the allegation of money trading against PTL: ASG Kodagoda

 -Geoffrey Aloysius appeared in court and tendered asset statement relating to PTL

 -Aloysius and Palisena re-remanded till July 19


By Shehan Chamika Silva


According to an interim report of the CBSL it was revealed that there were unusual secondary market transactions between Perpetual Treasuries Ltd and WM Mendis & Company which were not recorded in the CBSL system. ASG Yasantha Kodagoda said those suspicious transactions may be linked with cash cheques dispersed to various outside parties by PTL as the  PTL’s  transfer of money to WM Mendis & Company did not have a commercial value.

 At the onset of the inquiry, complying with the previous court order, Chairman of the Perpetual Treasuries Ltd, Geoffrey Aloysius appeared in Court. He also tendered the asset statements of the PTL in Court as required previously.

 However, it was explained that Mr, Geoffrey Aloysius will not represent PTL in the inquiry and therefore there will be no representation for the company which is the third suspect in the inquiry.

 Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda who appeared for the Prosecution thoroughly explained about a set of transactions that had taken place between PTL and WM Mendis & Companies (PTL's related group company) which were found as unusual secondary market transactions in an interim report given to the prosecution by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

The Central Bank is currently investigating on the money trading allegation against PTL with its related group companies, where it was alleged that PTL had dispersed cash cheques to the outside parties through its other related companies.

The interim report was relating to the above investigation of the CBSL as it had included an important finding during the investigation.

 ASG Kodagoda, explaining the interim report's finding, elaborated the manner in which these alleged transactions had taken place.

He said there were particular transactions had taken place between PTL and WM Mendis & Companies which operated as PTL's secondary market Treasuries Bond transactions.

 Explaining on the unusual nature of those transactions ASG pointed out that there were five categories namely REPO, REVERSE REPO, REPO ROLLOVER, REVERSE REPO ROLLOVER and OUGHT RIGHT secondary market transactions with WM Mendis & Companies between January 2015 to September 2016.

 He said the transactions in such nature should be separately recorded in the RTGS and CDS computer systems in the CBSL contemporaneously in addition to the physical documents maintained by PTL on those transactions.

 He said PTL had transferred considerable amount of money (sometimes Rs. 2 million per day) to the WM Mendis & companies as profits at the end of these bilateral transactions, which has no record in CBSL.

 *PTL transact with WM Mendis & Companies in the secondary market with transactions said to have had no commercial value

*End of the every such transaction PTL transfers considerable money to WM Mendis & Companies

 *Prosecution alleges these money transactions has a link when WM Mendis & Companies issuing cash cheques to outside parties without even sometimes not keeping official records with WM Mendis & Companies (such as vouchers relating to the such cheques)

 *These transactions had not been recorded in the CBSL system which is a required as per law

 ASG Kodagoda observed that it was a clear violation of Registered Securities and Stocks Ordinance and the section 62 of the Monetary Act of the country. He explained that it was a criminal offence relating to the securities.

 ASG Kodagoda was of the view that these transactions could amount to an offence come under the Money Laundering Act in the event if PTL had transfered its profits gained through Bond scam to its related companies using this unusual transactions.

 He maintained then the giver and also the receiver of these transactions could be culpable under the Money Laundering offence.

The interim report of the CBSL had found that those transactions were contrary to the contemporary market trends prevailed in the bond trading aswell.

 Explaining the importance of these findings to the inquiry, ASG Kodagoda said that these unusual transactions which had not recorded even in the CBSL could be related with the cash cheques that WM Mendis & Companies had given to the outside parties through courier services.

 He said there were 2487 cheques amounting to Rs. 1134 million had been issued from WM Mendis & Companies during January 2015 to September 2016 which should be perused so as to ascertain the allegation of money trading against PTL.

 After the ASG's explaination Fort Magistrate Lanka Jayaratne observed the seriousness of the revelation and asked the prosecution whether CBSL had any supervision on such transactions.

ASG Kodagoda replied in a sarcastic manner "indeed an indepth study on such transactions was required but when we observe the time during which these transactions happened the father in law was the Governor of the CBSL".

 ASG Kodagoda also said WM Mendis & Companies should posses the official vouchers relating to their issued cash cheques during January 2015 to September 2016. However, WM Mendis & Companies has said that some of the vouchers relating to their issued cash cheques were missing and only available in the computer system, said ASG Kodagoda.

 Consequently, acceding the prosecution's request Court directed the WM Mendis & Companies to assist the CID to get details from the computer system of the WM Mendis & Companies relating to the issued cash cheques.

Meanwhile, ASG Kodagoda also informed court that the CID was unable to enter into the computer system of the PTL during its investigation as the software of the computer system is apparently crashed.

Subsequently, acceding the prosecution's request the Magistrate allowed the investigators to use the service provider's assistance in accessing into the system.

Meanwhile, Perpetual Treasuries Ltd owner Arjun Aloysius and its CEO Kasun Palisena were ordered to be re-remanded till July 19 by the magistrate over the magisterial inquiry in which they were accused of abetting and conspiring with Arjuna Mahendran to misappropriate public funds worth Rs. 688 million during the Bond auction held on February 27, 2015.

No bail application for Aloysius today: Marapana PC ensures CA

-  Kalinga Indatissa PC points that petitioners have correctly invoked appellate jurisdiction and therefore the ability of the revision application being maintained at Court of Appeal

-  ASG Kodagoda says the Magistrate can remand the suspects even for maximum of two years considering the provision ‘public disquiet’ under the Bail Act

By Shehan Chamika Silva

President's Counsel Gamini Marapana who appeared on behalf of Arjun Aloysius in the revision bail application today ensured the Court of Appeal that no fresh bail application will be filed in magisterial inquiry today on suspect as it could question the revision application being continued in the Court of Appeal.

Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda drew the court's attention that there was an advance notice to the state from President's Counsel Anil Silva over a fresh bail application to be made today before the Fort Magistrate.

The Court of Appeal president Prithi Pathman Surasena observed that if the petitioners are in expectation over seeking an alternative remedy considering the change of circumstances in the magisterial inquiry, then the Court of Appeal is unable to see any justification to proceed with the revision application.

Thereafter, President's Counsel Gamini Marapana made his under taking that such application would not be made today.

At the onset, resuming his further submission, Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda elaborated the all allegations that put forward against the suspects in the magisterial inquiry and based on those allegations how the Bail Act operates in the question of granting the bail.

While explaining the possibility of keeping the suspects under the remand custody according to the Bail Act, he stated that the magistrate could remand suspects considering the public disquiet that may arise due to the alleged matter.

He said the Treasury Bond scam inquiry is an incident that spontaneously came into light of the general public not just because the Public institutions that were part of this fraud but its macro economic impact to the society which can never be estimated.

ASG Kodagoda observed that therefore the suspects could be kept in remand custody for maximum of two years as per law by a magistrate even only considering the aspect of 'public disquiet'.

Meanwhile, making counter submissions, President's Counsel Kalinga Indatissa argued on ASG's previous preliminary objection that the petitioners have not invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Pointing out a paragraph in the revision petition, he held that the petitioners have exercised their right to appeal properly in addition to the revision application which which sought against the High Court order.

Therefore, he maintained that the respondents preliminary objection cannot stand over the jurisdiction.

Mr. Indatissa also drew the attention of the court on the legal question as to whether the Treasury Bond could be regarded as property as per prevailing law.

Questioning the way in which the Fort Magistrate made it count as a property, he argued that the Bond is a concept which cannot be regarded as a tangible property and therefore the offences cannot fall under the public property.

The further inquiry relating  to the revision bail application filed on behalf of Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena was re-fixed for July 18 by the Court of Appeal Bench comprising Justice Shiran Gunaratne and Prithi Padman Surasena (President).

Earlier, the Fort Magistrate remanded the suspects considering the allegations levelled against them under the Public Property Act. And later, the suspects went to the High Court as the magistrate cannot release them on bail as per the PPA, where one who misappropriated public property causing more than Rs. 25, 000 damage to the state has no bail relief unless exceptional circumstances or by a high court judge.

However, Colombo High Court also refused to grant bail on suspects set a siding the suspects’ petitions. As a result, the suspects filed a revision bail petition in Court of Appeal to revise the bail order of the Magistrate and the decision of the High Court.

Five civil suits against PTL claiming Rs. 8.5 bn: ASG Kodagoda

Cases were filed on behalf of :

• Employees Provident Fund
• Employees Trust Fund
• National Savings Bank
• Insurance Corporation of Sri Lanka
• Provident Fund of the University Grants Commission

By Shehan Chamika Silva

During the submissions made by Additional Solicitor General Yasantha Kodagoda over the revision bail application filed by Arjun Aloysius and Kasun Palisena, it was revealed that the Attorney General had so far filed five civil cases in the District Court on behalf of five state institutes against Perpetual Treasuries Ltd (PTL).

These civil cases were on behalf of Employees Provident Fund, Employees Trust Fund, National Savings Bank, Insurance Corporation of Sri Lanka and the Pension Fund of the University Grants Commission.

The state in these law suits claimed a total of Rs. 8.5 billion from Perpetual Treasuries Ltd with regard to the unlawful profits gained by PTL in the Treasury Bond transactions which resulted in incurring huge losses to the above five entities.

Disparity in Bribery Act raised at revision application filed by Gota

Revision application filed by Gota in CA over Avant Garde case:

Counsel raises disparity in Bribery Act  

Romesh De Silva PC points out that HC had given order by interpreting ‘non-existing’ section in the Act

By Shehan Chamika Silva

Bringing an unexpected legal argument, President’s Counsel Romesh de Silva today contended that the order given by the High Court judge over the Avant Garde corruption case filed against former Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and others cannot stand as the Judge had interpreted none existing section of the Bribery Act.

Earlier, when the Bribery Commission filed the corruption case against the suspects in the Chief Magistrate’s Court, the defense took the stance that under the section 78 (1) of the Bribery Act there was a need of a written sanction by the ‘Commission’ so as to institute such an action by the prosecution, therefore the case should be dismissed.

However, this argument was overruled by the Chief Magistrate and then the defense filed a revision application in High Court against the Chief Magistrate’s order.

High Court Judge too referring to the section 78 of the Bribery Act rejected to allow defense argument.

Consequently, the defense filed a revision application in the Court of Appeal against the High Court order.

Bringing a whole new aspect to the defense argument, Romesh de Silva PC yesterday challenged the High Court Judge’s order.

Mr. de Silva said that while High Court Judge was interpreting section 78 of the Bribery Act (upon which the defense’s legal argument is based on), he had referred to a wrong section which does not exist as law.

Mr. de Silva elaborated that the section 78 was prevalent since 1954 in the Country’s Bribery Act. Then in 1980 through an amendment to the Act (No: 2, 1980 Amendment Bribery Act) the section 78 had been removed and introduced a new section to it.

Then the amended section was the established law until another amendment introduced to the Bribery Act which came into effect in 1994 (No: 20, Amendment Bribery Act).

Mr. de Silva that the 1994 amendment into the section 78 had also included an amendment to a phrase which is not there in the 1980 amendment and therefore the 1994 amendment is wrong.

He was of the view that therefore the consolidated Bribery Act upon which the High Court Judge had given his order is therefore a wrong law.
In view of the submissions made by Counsel Romesh de Silva PC on the issue of law, Senior State Counsel Janaka Bandara appearing for the Attorney General pleaded time to study disparities carefully.

Court fixed the matter for further submission on tomorrow the 4th (Wednesday) whereas the High Court trial is billed for July 9.

Counsel Romesh de Silva PC informed Court that he will support for notice and Interim Relief on that date.

Romesh de Silva PC with M.U.M.Ali Sabry PC, Sugath Caldera, Ruwantha Cooray and Farith de Mel instructed by Sanath Wijewardande appeared for Gotabhaya.

Petitioner Gotabhaya Rajapakse filed Revision application in the Court of Appeal on the High Court rejection of his application sought to acquit and release him from Avant Garde Case.

He cited Director General of Bribery Commission as complainant-Respondent and Sujatha Damayanthi Jayaratne, Piyasiri Fernando, Banda Fernando Egodawela, Somathilake Dissanayake, Nissanka Yapa Senadhipathy, Kumarasiri Kolambage and Jayantha Perera as Accused-Respondents.

He states the Director General of Bribery Commission instituted proceedings in the Colombo Magistrate’s Court.

He states on the first opportunity available, his Counsel moved Court to raise a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the action wherein it was contended that the complainant had failed to satisfy a mandatory pre-requisite namely written sanction of the Commission.

He states the Magistrate on 17th November 2017 overruled the preliminary objections and moved to read the charges and ordered the suspects to record their plea for the charges which were read out in open Court.

Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Magistrate, he filed application in the Colombo High Court for revisionary jurisdiction.

The High Court Judge on 2nd February 2018 his order refused to issue notices and dismissed the petition.

Being aggrieved with this order he now filed revision application in the Court of Appeal seeking to stay the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court until the final determination of this petition and to revise/set aside the orders of the High Court and allow him to revise the Magistrate’s Court.