The Asset Recovery and Property Retrieval Taskforce (AREPT), working with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), has filed a motion to refuse jurisdiction for Finda’s new bail bond.
By that, prosecution have asked Criminal Court ‘C’ not to recognize the newly filed bonds.
In a release, AREPT argues that the bond dispute was already before the Justice in Chambers of the Supreme Court after Finda’s legal team challenged the lower court’s ruling, and that Criminal Court ‘C’ should not have entertained, or approved any new bond while the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court.
According to AREPT, the Supreme Court had already cited the parties to a conference to review the legality of the lower court’s actions, and temporarily ordered Finda’s release under “specific conditions.”
The Taskforce maintains how the lower court should have waited for the Supreme Court decision before taking any further action on the bond issue.
AREPT insists that its latest motion is not intended to deny Finda’s constitutional right to bail, but to ensure that proper judicial procedures are followed.
The case remains before both the Criminal Court ‘C’ and the Supreme Court as the legal dispute over Finda’s bond continues.
Meanwhile, Nora Finda Bundoo, and several co-defendants remain under indictment on allegations, including money laundering, theft of property, misuse of public money, criminal conspiracy, forgery, and criminal facilitation.
She has denied the allegations, and no finding of guilt has been made by the court.
She has previously filed a new US$8 million criminal appearance bond, marking her third attempt to satisfy the bail conditions set by Criminal Court ‘C’ in the ongoing Gracious Ride corruption case.
The latest bond is backed by two insurance companies, with American Underwriter Group guaranteeing US$2 million, and ACICO Insurance Company providing US$6 million.
The new bond follows two earlier bond packages, which Criminal Court ‘C’ rejected.
The first was set aside after the court found problems with the sureties, while the second was disqualified, because one of the properties used as security was already heavily encumbered, and had been pledged in several other court cases.
The court subsequently fixed a new bail at US$8 million, and ordered Fina rearrests until a valid bond was approved.
