Bank systems take spotlight in Sagicor fraud case
Published:Friday | December 5, 2025 | 12:12 AMAndre Williams/Staff Reporter
There were several tense moments during Thursday’s sitting of the Sagicor fraud trial as defence attorneys aggressively questioned a former banker who returned to the stand for cross-examination.
The trial involves former bank manager Tricia Moulton, her sister Alysia Moulton-White, and two former colleagues – Malika McLeod, a personal banking officer, and Tishan Samuels, a client-care officer. All four are charged on a 22-count indictment linked to an alleged multimillion-dollar internal fraud scheme.
Moulton, previously branch manager at Sagicor Bank Liguanea, along with McLeod and Samuels, is accused of helping to orchestrate a sophisticated operation that allegedly siphoned approximately $65 million from the institution through the creation of seven ghost accounts.
Moulton-White, a former vice-president at Sagicor Life, is alleged to have personally benefited from the illicit proceeds, receiving about $661,000.
The accused are charged under the Larceny Act for obtaining money by false pretences and credit by fraud under the Proceeds of Crime Act for engaging in and acquiring criminal property and at common law for conspiracy to defraud.
The matter is being heard in the Kingston and St Andrew Parish Court, with Parish Judge Maxine Ellis presiding. All four defendants were present on Thursday.
The witness at the centre of the day’s intense exchanges was a former bank manager who now works as a consultant.
The witness, who gave his evidence-in-chief on Wednesday, faced a multipronged and sometimes heated round of cross-examination yesterday. Though visibly irritated at times, he maintained his position during questioning from at least three defence attorneys.
A major focus was the bank’s Temporary Accommodation Requests (TARs) system, which prosecutors allege the women manipulated to facilitate the fraudulent transactions. Attorney Kemar Robinson, representing Moulton, pressed the witness on the parameters of the TARs process.
“You agree with me that the manual (TARs) allows increases or excesses of up to 30 days?” Robinson asked.
“Yes,” the witness replied.
“And it allows extensions up to 90 days?” Robinson asked.
The witness countered: “You’re speaking about something different ... . TARS is repayable in 30 days. ... That extension (90 days) is for something different. Counsel, if you read the document in its entirety, you would agree with me.”
Robinson also established that the witness gave his police statement on October 16, 2024, nearly two years after the women were charged.
Attorney Patrice Riley, representing McLeod, questioned whether the bank’s systems could reliably determine who executed TARs-related transactions. The witness acknowledged that the system showed instances of the TARs mechanism being used for purposes beyond its intended function.
“The TARs application that you saw – some were shown to you – do you recall seeing Malika McLeod’s signature on those?” Riley quizzed.
“No [written] signature. Your signature – your DNA – in my organisation is an email coming from your designated email account,” the witness said.
Riley challenged that reasoning, asking whether others could gain access to an employee’s email.
“It is not unheard of,” the witness responded.
She pressed further, “Do you agree with me that in all of your investigation, nothing or none of the documents that supposedly has Malika McLeod’s name on it bore anything that could definitively say that she had anything to do with that document?”
“If my recollection is right, I believe many of those documents were emailed ... by Malika,” the witness said.
Riley responded, asking the witness if he remembered her question about email access.
Attorney Rita Allen Brown, representing Samuels, also challenged aspects of the witness’ testimony related to audit trails and internal approval systems, at one point accusing him of inflating aspects of his evidence.
Defense attorneys collectively suggested that system weaknesses, procedural gaps, or unauthorised access by other employees could have contributed to the irregularities.
The four accused had their bail extended and are scheduled to return to court today.