After months of multiple criminal counts and cases being filed in the Marshall Islands High Court by chief prosecutor Tubosoye Brown, he said the judge’s decision confirms the government will be able to successfully prosecute the widespread fraud that has permeated the Ministries of Finance and Health.
Judge James Plasman ruled that in two separate cases against Ministry of Finance worker Allister Mantiera there is “good cause” to believe the defendant committed the crimes alleged. He set trials for August and October in the two separate cases.
The development steps up the tempo of the attorney general’s action against a growing group of people charged with defrauding the government of U.S. grant funding.
Nine charges against Mantiera regarding his participation in the theft of $80,350 through government checks issued to local business Home Special Supply will go to trial August 9. Another set of seven charges for Mantiera’s participation in a scheme to defraud the government of $42,195 by issuing checks to local auto repair business known as MGAS is to go to trial on October 4. Police investigators said the government received no services for these funds. Both cases will be heard by jury trials.
“The court finds good cause to believe the (nine) offenses charged occurred and that defendant committed them,” said Judge Plasman in his ruling on the Home Special Supply case.
In the MGAS-related case, the judge also found “good cause” to proceed on the seven counts charged. In both cases, Brown dismissed one of the originally filed charges.
Plasman pointed out that Mantiera, who is represented by assistant public defender Karotu Tiba, argued that the “grand larceny” charges were incorrect since he did not actually steal, take or carry away the money charged in each count. But, said Plasman, “defendant’s liability may be found based upon his participation in a conspiracy, as an aider and abettor, or as an accessory. Ample evidence from the testimony of Lt. Parker Wilson and government Oexhibit one’ established the existence of a conspiracy for the purposes of a preliminary hearing.”
In the 15-page ruling in the MGAS-related case, Plasman discussed at length the issue of “good cause” and the acceptable standard for evidence presented at a preliminary hearing, which is lower than required at trial.
Plasman observed that the defense did not object to admission of various documents by Brown and witness statements. “Defendant was, of course, under no obligation to object to the admission of evidence,” Plasman said.
“Objection could potentially bring attention to weakness in the prosecution case that defendant intends to exploit at trial.”
Plasman said the government’s case met the requirement for determining “good cause” at a preliminary hearing. “While the government’s case was built largely on circumstantial evidence and hearsay, the court believes that, taking reasonable inferences in favor of the government, Ogood cause’ has been shown that the offense charged was committed and that defendant committed it,” Plasman said.
