1.5 million dollar money laundering case goes to Supreme Court

The operator of Money Exchange International Limited, the Coye Family, is committed to stand trial at the Supreme Court. That’s the decision of Magistrate Kathleen Lewis at the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry today. They Coyes have been charged with Money Laundering of more than a million dollars in cold cash found in suitcases at their home since December thirty-first 2008. News Five’s Jose Sanchez has been following the story and has this report.

Jose Sanchez, Reporting
The Coye Family, James Gerou, Money Exchange International and office workers Athlee Matute and Deitrich Kingston have all been charged with laundering one point five million dollars. Magistrate Kathleen Lewis felt enough evidence was established to have the group committed to stand trial. Antoinette Moore presented the case on behalf of the Financial Intelligence Unit.

Antoinette Moore, Attorney for F.I.U.
“The magistrate finding on all counts that the defendants should proceed to trial before the Supreme Court. She found that each and every submission made by the defendants failed. Not one submission did she find there was any merit to. This was not surprising to us.”

Arthur Saldivar, Attorney for Coye Family and M.E.I.L.
“One of the contentions was the directing mind and will of the defendant company in this case and using that argument to substantiate the committal. The directing mind and will—of course the company is an abstract entity, it is basically controlled by the persons within it; the directors and shareholders and managing directors. Those people have day to day responsibilities to order the business of the company. In that particular regard, there would only be two for M.E.I.L., the defendant company here. Certainly you cannot put a messenger or office assistant as the person who would be the directing mind and will. So it’s a shock that everyone would be committed if anyone were to be committed.”

Antoinette Moore
“Michael Coye is the director of the company, as you might know if you were listening to the evidence that was put forth by the prosecution. That, in and of itself, puts him in the position to have to answer whether or not he engaged in money laundering. Marlene Coye was at the house where the money was found, the money that we allege is tainted money, money that is the proceeds of crime. She was not only at the house, she responded to the police by telling them that she had some money and showed them three bags completely attempting to conceal the remainder of the money that was in the home. Of course, when the search was concluded all the money was uncovered that was at that address. Marlene Coye, by that action alone, showed that she was engaged in some attempt to conceal at the very least. But the prosecution is contending that, more than that, she is a member of the joint enterprise. Jude Coye lives at the same address that the money was found and worked for the company. There may be a dispute in terms of factually what he did for the company but from the evidence that the prosecution put forth he worked for the company and was engaged in signing names that were not his own on the MoneyGram forms.”

The defense was hoping for the case being dropped but according to Coye family attorney Arthur Saldivar, the case is not lost.

Arthur Saldivar
“It is a blow. We still maintain that the case is weak because really there is no substantiation of any of the claims made. But in the opinion of the magistrate, this is something that she believes the jury of the Supreme Court will be better at deciding. That said, I respect her decision, I believe and I have abiding faith in our judicial process and know that we will have another day to have this matter be heard. This is not the end of the process.”

Jose Sanchez
“The defense was questioning whether or not retired Police George Heusner was a handwriting expert. Did his testimony or statement have any relevance in the judgment?”

Antoinette Moore
“Well, obviously again, as the magistrate stated, whether or not a person is an expert is a matter for the judge to determine. Whether his skill and expertise meets the criteria to be an expert witness is for a judge to determine; not at the examining level, not at the preliminary inquiry. Many of the issues raised by the defense are issues for trial, issues for a jury, issues for the trial judge; not for an examining magistrate.”

Jose Sanchez
“The points you brought up in court, the magistrate said those are points to be argued at trial. Will you bring up those points again?”

Arthur Saldivar
“That will depend greatly on what the prosecution now does, which I believe goes against the grain of what our justice system requires. But I will not want to go in dept. If there is any change, as I suspect there might be, then it would be, in my estimation, prejudiced. But the magistrate, in her discretion, has stated that she doesn’t see how prejudice would be done but we will see.”

The final adjournment for the preliminary is set for December seventh when the prosecution will bind its witnesses to appear at the Supreme Court trial. Reporting for News Five, Jose Sanchez.